Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

UK

2012-01-31T18:19:46Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by R3D1R3CTV4ND4L (talk) to last revision by Tsumetai

#REDIRECT [[United Kingdom]]

USA

2012-01-31T18:19:43Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by R3D1R3CTV4ND4L (talk) to last revision by Elamdri

#REDIRECT [[United States of America]]

Czech

2012-01-31T18:19:40Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by R3D1R3CTV4ND4L (talk) to last revision by NathanG

#REDIRECT [[Czech Republic]]

Patrick Roy

2012-01-31T02:39:30Z

ScottDG: coaches don't make trades, gms do.

'''Patrick Roy''' (born October 5th, 1965) was a goaltender who played for the [[Montreal Canadiens]] and the [[Colorado Avalanche]]. He won four [[Stanley Cup]]s during his career. Two with each team. He was traded from the Canadiens to the Avs in 1995, later that season he would lead the Avalanche to their first of two Stanley Cups.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Roy, Patrick}}
[[Category:NHL Players]]

Montreal Canadiens

2012-01-31T02:38:30Z

ScottDG: /* Management */

The '''Montréal Canadiens''' are a professional ice hockey team based in [[Montreal|Montréal]], [[Québec]]. The Canadiens are the oldest NHL Franchise, as one of the "Original Six" of the [[NHL]]. The Canadiens have won 24 [[Stanley Cup]]s, the most of any NHL Team. The team last won the Stanley Cup in the 1992-1993 season, the last time any Canadian team has won the Stanley Cup. The Canadiens play in the Northeast Division of the Eastern Conference at home in the Bell Centre since 1996. Another famous home of the Canadiens (or "Habs" as they are know by their English fans) was the Montréal Forum which was opened in 1924.

==Management==
The team's Front Office:<ref>http://canadiens.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NHLPage&id=16936</ref>

Owner: [[Geoff Molson]], since 2001.

President: [[Geoff Molson]], since 1999.

General Manager: [[Pierre Gauthier]], since 2003.

Head Coach: [[Randy Cunneyworth]], since 2011.

Assistant Coaches: Randy Ladouceur Larry Carriere

==Roster==
===Goalkeepers===
*31 [[Carey Price]]
*30 Peter Budaj
===Defenders===
*17 Chris Campoli

*61 Raphael Diaz

*74 Alexi Emelin

*75 Hal Gill

*26 [[Josh Gorges]]

*22 Tomas Kaberle

*47 Brendon Nash

*76 PK Subban

*68 Yannick Weber

===Centers===
*51 David Desjardins

*81 Lars Eller

*11 Scott Gomez

*15 Petteri Nokelainen

*14 Tomas Plekanec

*53 Ryan White

===Right Wing===
*45 Michael Blunden

*72 Erik Cole

*21 Brian Gionta

*46 Andrei Kostitsyn

===Left Wing===
*38 Hunter Bishop

*27 Rene Bourque

*52 Mathieu Darche

*32 Travis Moen

*67 Max Pacioretty
==Season Results==
'''''2007-2008'''''
<table borcer="0">
<tr>
<td>Season</td>
<td>W</td>
<td>L</td>
<td>OTL</td>
<td>PTS</td>
<td>FINISH</td>
<td>GF</td>
<td>GA</td>
<td>HOME</td>
<td>AWAY</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Regular<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/standings?season=2008&group=division&order=false&seasontype=2&standType=standings</ref></td>
<td>47</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>104</td>
<td>1st, Northeast</td>
<td>262</td>
<td>222</td>
<td>22-13-6</td>
<td>25-12-4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1st Round v. [[Boston Bruins|BOS]]</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td></td>
<td>8</td>
<td>Won</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>1-2</td>
<td>3-1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2nd Round v. [[Philadelphia Flyers|PHI]]</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>4</td>
<td></td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Lost</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>1-2</td>
<td>0-2</td>
</tr>
</table>

'''Leaders:'''<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/teams/stats?team=mon&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=0&type=reg</ref>

*Points: [[Alexei Kovalev|Kovalev]] - 84

*Goals: [[Alexei Kovalev|Kovalev]] - 35

*Assists: [[Alexei Kovalev|Kovalev]] - 49

*Penalty Minutes: [[Tom Kostopoulos]] - 113

*Goals Against: [[Cristobal Huet]] - 2.56

==Retired Numbers==
List of numbers retired by the team or NHL:<ref>http://canadiens.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NHLPage&id=16875</ref>

1 - [[Jacques Plante]]

2 - [[Doug Harvey]]

4 - [[Jean Beliveau]]

5 - [[Bernard Geoffrion]]

7 - [[Howie Morenz]]

9 - [[Maurice Richard]]

10 - [[Guy Lafleur]]

12 - [[Dickie Moore]]

12 - [[Yvan Cournoyer]]

16 - [[Henri Richard]]

18 - [[Serge Savard]]

19 - [[Larry Robinson]]

23 - [[Bob Gainey]]

29 - [[Ken Dryden]]

33 - [[Patrick Roy]]
==See also==
* [[Canadian sports]]

==References==
<references/>

== Team's Official Website ==

*[http://canadiens.nhl.com/index.html Official Team Website]

{{Nb_sl_nhl}}
[[Category:Canadian Sports Teams]]

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T02:28:39Z

ScottDG: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T02:12:10Z

ScottDG: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T02:08:34Z

ScottDG: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T02:03:14Z

ScottDG: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T02:02:57Z

ScottDG: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T01:30:27Z

ScottDG: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T01:29:54Z

ScottDG: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Michael Reagan

2012-01-30T21:12:06Z

ScottDG:

[[Image:Michael Reagan.jpg|left|140px]]
'''Michael Reagan''' (1945 - ), the adopted eldest son of [[Ronald Reagan]] and Jane Wyman, is an American [[conservative]] radio host and [[Republican]] strategist.

His radio program ''The Michael Reagan Talk Show'', was aired throughout the United States on Radio America until 2009, and then on AFR until 2010 when it was cancelled.
<blockquote>
Mike is not only a legend in radio but an [[author]] of many successful books as well. His latest release is "Twice Adopted". In his foreword Sean Hannity wrote, "Mike takes his life inside out and dumps it on the table for the whole world to see. He has held nothing back." [http://www.radioamerica.org/PRG_michaelreagan.htm]
</blockquote>

== See also ==

*[[Conservative links]]
*[[Talk radio]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.reagan.com/ Michael Reagan's web site]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Reagan, Michael}}
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Authors]]

United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012

2012-01-30T20:37:46Z

ScottDG:

Endorsements could decide the outcome of the [[Presidential Election 2012]], especially in the [[Republican]] primary. Here are the likely big endorsements in December 2011 through March 2012:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Predicted Timing
!Actual Endorsement
!Analysis
|-
|10
|[[John McCain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|Mitt Romney<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-mccain-endorses-mitt-romney-hampshire-primary-article-1.1000891?localLinksEnabled=false John McCain endorses Mitt Romney ahead of New Hampshire primary] Shahid, Aliyah, NY Daily News, December 4, 2011, retrieved December 4, 2011</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted the timing correctly, and presumably Gingrich's poor showing in the [[Iowa Caucuses]] caused McCain, in a surprise, to back Romney. The press conference itself was a disaster, however; McCain does not excite or charm the faithful anymore. He would likely become Romney's [[Secretary of Defense]] and dictate his foreign policy. ''Mitt Romney did worse than polling indicated in [[New Hampshire]] after McCain endorsed him''.
|-
|9
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between NH and SC primaries
|On Jan. 17, between the NH and SC primaries, Sarah declared on national television, "I'd vote for Newt" in the SC primary<ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/17/sarah-palin-endorses-newt-gingrich-sort-of-and-only-in-s-c/]</ref>
|The endorsement of Newt by [[Todd Palin]] just before the NH primary signaled that Sarah would endorse Newt soon after the NH primary, thereby negating Mitt's victory. Sarah Palin stated that SC voters should consider voting for Gingrich in the primary in order to "keep this thing [GOP primaries] going."<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088185/Sarah-Palin-backs-Newt-Gingrich-prevent-Mitt-Romney-getting-GOP-nomination.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Palin 'backs' Gingrich in South Carolina primary vote ... but only to prevent Romney running away with GOP nomination] Smith, Graham, dailymail.co.uk, January 19, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|8
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Before Iowa primary
|Chuck Norris, Huckabee's biggest supporter in 2008, endorsed Newt Gingrich in January
|The [[Fox News Channel]] probably wants Huck to endorse Romney now that his choice for Secretary of State will likely be the [[neocon]] [[John McCain]]
|-
|7
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Newt Gingrich
|After SC primary
|Newt Gingrich
|Two days before the SC primary, Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57361787-503544/rick-perry-drops-his-presidential-bid/ Rick Perry drops his presidential bid] Condon, Stephanie, cbsnews.com, January 19, 2012, retrieved January 19, 2012</ref> -- so ''Conservapedia'''s prediction here was perfect in result and off by only three days as to when.
|-
|6
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Mitt Romney
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|As long as Santorum draws more voters away from Romney's more conservative competitors than from Romney himself, Santorum will stay in the race and delay his endorsement.
|-
|5
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Mitt Romney
|prediction already made and confirmed
|Mitt Romney
|
|-
|4
|[[National Right to Life Committee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|in December
|[[Trent Franks]], a leading pro-life congressman, endorsed Newt on Jan. 13
|The delay in pro-life endorsements is probably to await Santorum dropping out of the race.
|-
|3
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Newt Gingrich
|between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|Trump subsequently left the [[Republican Party]], presumably to consider running as an Independent, which makes it unlikely he'll be endorsing any Republican for president in the near future.
|-
|2
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|before [[Iowa Caucuses]]
|Herman endorsed Newt on Jan. 28, only 26 days after the time predicted by Conservapedia.
|Cain was reportedly ready to endorse Gingrich in December, as ''Conservapedia'' predicted, but bad press about Cain probably caused Gingrich to place that on hold for lack of a positive effect. From January 16 through 27 the media reported that Cain would not endorse any candidate during the GOP primaries.<ref>[http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/cain-will-not-endorse-1299792.html Cain will not endorse in GOP primary] Malloy, Daniel, The ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'', January 16, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|1
|[[Michael Reagan]]
|(no prediction made)
|
|Newt Gingrich
|
|-
|1
|[[Lindsey Graham]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Before South Carolina Primaries
|No firm endorsement, but did come out and say that Gingrich was "electable" <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57363509/graham-in-s.c-gingrich-proved-hes-electable/]</ref>
|
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Useless Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Endorsement
!Why it is useless
|-
|10
|Iowa ''Des Moines Register''
|Mitt Romney
|The newspaper supported same-sex marriage
|-
|9
|[[Jon Huntsman]]
|Mitt Romney
|Many wondered why this ambassador for the Obama Administration was running for the Republican nomination.
|-
|8
|[[John Bolton]]
|Mitt Romney
|No impact on the essential issue of domestic policy and may not even help on issues of foreign policy except to the extent Bolton has been critical of the [[United Nations]]
|}

== Not likely to endorse until winner is clear ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Non-Endorser
!Reason explained by ''Conservapedia''
!Result
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb hopes to be selected at the convention if no candidate wins a majority, and thus wants to remain on good terms with all candidates.
|
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|DeMint would rather build support across the [[conservative]] movement without picking sides.
|
|}

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

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

United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012

2012-01-30T20:34:26Z

ScottDG:

Endorsements could decide the outcome of the [[Presidential Election 2012]], especially in the [[Republican]] primary. Here are the likely big endorsements in December 2011 through March 2012:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Predicted Timing
!Actual Endorsement
!Analysis
|-
|10
|[[John McCain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|Mitt Romney<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-mccain-endorses-mitt-romney-hampshire-primary-article-1.1000891?localLinksEnabled=false John McCain endorses Mitt Romney ahead of New Hampshire primary] Shahid, Aliyah, NY Daily News, December 4, 2011, retrieved December 4, 2011</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted the timing correctly, and presumably Gingrich's poor showing in the [[Iowa Caucuses]] caused McCain, in a surprise, to back Romney. The press conference itself was a disaster, however; McCain does not excite or charm the faithful anymore. He would likely become Romney's [[Secretary of Defense]] and dictate his foreign policy. ''Mitt Romney did worse than polling indicated in [[New Hampshire]] after McCain endorsed him''.
|-
|9
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between NH and SC primaries
|On Jan. 17, between the NH and SC primaries, Sarah declared on national television, "I'd vote for Newt" in the SC primary<ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/17/sarah-palin-endorses-newt-gingrich-sort-of-and-only-in-s-c/]</ref>
|The endorsement of Newt by [[Todd Palin]] just before the NH primary signaled that Sarah would endorse Newt soon after the NH primary, thereby negating Mitt's victory. Sarah Palin stated that SC voters should consider voting for Gingrich in the primary in order to "keep this thing [GOP primaries] going."<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088185/Sarah-Palin-backs-Newt-Gingrich-prevent-Mitt-Romney-getting-GOP-nomination.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Palin 'backs' Gingrich in South Carolina primary vote ... but only to prevent Romney running away with GOP nomination] Smith, Graham, dailymail.co.uk, January 19, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|8
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Before Iowa primary
|Chuck Norris, Huckabee's biggest supporter in 2008, endorsed Newt Gingrich in January
|The [[Fox News Channel]] probably wants Huck to endorse Romney now that his choice for Secretary of State will likely be the [[neocon]] [[John McCain]]
|-
|7
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Newt Gingrich
|After SC primary
|Newt Gingrich
|Two days before the SC primary, Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57361787-503544/rick-perry-drops-his-presidential-bid/ Rick Perry drops his presidential bid] Condon, Stephanie, cbsnews.com, January 19, 2012, retrieved January 19, 2012</ref> -- so ''Conservapedia'''s prediction here was perfect in result and off by only three days as to when.
|-
|6
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Mitt Romney
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|As long as Santorum draws more voters away from Romney's more conservative competitors than from Romney himself, Santorum will stay in the race and delay his endorsement.
|-
|5
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Mitt Romney
|prediction already made and confirmed
|Mitt Romney
|
|-
|4
|[[National Right to Life Committee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|in December
|[[Trent Franks]], a leading pro-life congressman, endorsed Newt on Jan. 13
|The delay in pro-life endorsements is probably to await Santorum dropping out of the race.
|-
|3
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Newt Gingrich
|between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|Trump subsequently left the [[Republican Party]], presumably to consider running as an Independent, which makes it unlikely he'll be endorsing any Republican for president in the near future.
|-
|2
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|before [[Iowa Caucuses]]
|Herman endorsed Newt on Jan. 28, only 26 days after the time predicted by Conservapedia.
|Cain was reportedly ready to endorse Gingrich in December, as ''Conservapedia'' predicted, but bad press about Cain probably caused Gingrich to place that on hold for lack of a positive effect. From January 16 through 27 the media reported that Cain would not endorse any candidate during the GOP primaries.<ref>[http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/cain-will-not-endorse-1299792.html Cain will not endorse in GOP primary] Malloy, Daniel, The ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'', January 16, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|1
|[[Michael Reagan]]
|(no prediction made)
|
|Newt Gingrich
|
|-
|1
|[[Lindsey Graham]]
| Newt Gingrich
|Before South Carolina Primaries
|
|
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Useless Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Endorsement
!Why it is useless
|-
|10
|Iowa ''Des Moines Register''
|Mitt Romney
|The newspaper supported same-sex marriage
|-
|9
|[[Jon Huntsman]]
|Mitt Romney
|Many wondered why this ambassador for the Obama Administration was running for the Republican nomination.
|-
|8
|[[John Bolton]]
|Mitt Romney
|No impact on the essential issue of domestic policy and may not even help on issues of foreign policy except to the extent Bolton has been critical of the [[United Nations]]
|}

== Not likely to endorse until winner is clear ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Non-Endorser
!Reason explained by ''Conservapedia''
!Result
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb hopes to be selected at the convention if no candidate wins a majority, and thus wants to remain on good terms with all candidates.
|
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|DeMint would rather build support across the [[conservative]] movement without picking sides.
|
|}

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

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

United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012

2012-01-30T20:31:59Z

ScottDG: re-inserting prediction removed in last edit--wouldn't want people to thin k that "Conservapedia" was hiding predictions that didn't come to pass.

Endorsements could decide the outcome of the [[Presidential Election 2012]], especially in the [[Republican]] primary. Here are the likely big endorsements in December 2011 through March 2012:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Predicted Timing
!Actual Endorsement
!Analysis
|-
|10
|[[John McCain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|Mitt Romney<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-mccain-endorses-mitt-romney-hampshire-primary-article-1.1000891?localLinksEnabled=false John McCain endorses Mitt Romney ahead of New Hampshire primary] Shahid, Aliyah, NY Daily News, December 4, 2011, retrieved December 4, 2011</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted the timing correctly, and presumably Gingrich's poor showing in the [[Iowa Caucuses]] caused McCain, in a surprise, to back Romney. The press conference itself was a disaster, however; McCain does not excite or charm the faithful anymore. He would likely become Romney's [[Secretary of Defense]] and dictate his foreign policy. ''Mitt Romney did worse than polling indicated in [[New Hampshire]] after McCain endorsed him''.
|-
|9
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Between NH and SC primaries
|On Jan. 17, between the NH and SC primaries, Sarah declared on national television, "I'd vote for Newt" in the SC primary<ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/17/sarah-palin-endorses-newt-gingrich-sort-of-and-only-in-s-c/]</ref>
|The endorsement of Newt by [[Todd Palin]] just before the NH primary signaled that Sarah would endorse Newt soon after the NH primary, thereby negating Mitt's victory. Sarah Palin stated that SC voters should consider voting for Gingrich in the primary in order to "keep this thing [GOP primaries] going."<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088185/Sarah-Palin-backs-Newt-Gingrich-prevent-Mitt-Romney-getting-GOP-nomination.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Palin 'backs' Gingrich in South Carolina primary vote ... but only to prevent Romney running away with GOP nomination] Smith, Graham, dailymail.co.uk, January 19, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|8
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|Before Iowa primary
|Chuck Norris, Huckabee's biggest supporter in 2008, endorsed Newt Gingrich in January
|The [[Fox News Channel]] probably wants Huck to endorse Romney now that his choice for Secretary of State will likely be the [[neocon]] [[John McCain]]
|-
|7
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Newt Gingrich
|After SC primary
|Newt Gingrich
|Two days before the SC primary, Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57361787-503544/rick-perry-drops-his-presidential-bid/ Rick Perry drops his presidential bid] Condon, Stephanie, cbsnews.com, January 19, 2012, retrieved January 19, 2012</ref> -- so ''Conservapedia'''s prediction here was perfect in result and off by only three days as to when.
|-
|6
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Mitt Romney
|Between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|As long as Santorum draws more voters away from Romney's more conservative competitors than from Romney himself, Santorum will stay in the race and delay his endorsement.
|-
|5
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Mitt Romney
|prediction already made and confirmed
|Mitt Romney
|
|-
|4
|[[National Right to Life Committee]]
|Newt Gingrich
|in December
|[[Trent Franks]], a leading pro-life congressman, endorsed Newt on Jan. 13
|The delay in pro-life endorsements is probably to await Santorum dropping out of the race.
|-
|3
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Newt Gingrich
|between Iowa and NH primaries
|
|Trump subsequently left the [[Republican Party]], presumably to consider running as an Independent, which makes it unlikely he'll be endorsing any Republican for president in the near future.
|-
|2
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Newt Gingrich
|before [[Iowa Caucuses]]
|Herman endorsed Newt on Jan. 28, only 26 days after the time predicted by Conservapedia.
|Cain was reportedly ready to endorse Gingrich in December, as ''Conservapedia'' predicted, but bad press about Cain probably caused Gingrich to place that on hold for lack of a positive effect. From January 16 through 27 the media reported that Cain would not endorse any candidate during the GOP primaries.<ref>[http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/cain-will-not-endorse-1299792.html Cain will not endorse in GOP primary] Malloy, Daniel, The ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'', January 16, 2012, retrieved January 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|1
|[[Michael Reagan]]
|(no prediction made)
|
|Newt Gingrich
|
|-
|1
|[[Lindsey Graham]]
|Before South Carolina Primaries
|
|Newt Gingrich
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Useless Value (max. 10)
!Endorser
!Endorsement
!Why it is useless
|-
|10
|Iowa ''Des Moines Register''
|Mitt Romney
|The newspaper supported same-sex marriage
|-
|9
|[[Jon Huntsman]]
|Mitt Romney
|Many wondered why this ambassador for the Obama Administration was running for the Republican nomination.
|-
|8
|[[John Bolton]]
|Mitt Romney
|No impact on the essential issue of domestic policy and may not even help on issues of foreign policy except to the extent Bolton has been critical of the [[United Nations]]
|}

== Not likely to endorse until winner is clear ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Non-Endorser
!Reason explained by ''Conservapedia''
!Result
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb hopes to be selected at the convention if no candidate wins a majority, and thus wants to remain on good terms with all candidates.
|
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|DeMint would rather build support across the [[conservative]] movement without picking sides.
|
|}

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

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

Talk:Rugby World Cup

2012-01-29T22:13:12Z

ScottDG: /* New Zealand */

== Superbowl comparison ==

Just to clarify, I think the Superbowl comparison is inaccurate due to fact that "Superbowl" essentially describes one game at the end of an annual national tournament, whereas "Rugby World Cup" is the name for this four-yearly international tournament as a whole. Perhaps a better example would be to compare it to the soccer world cup. Your decision of course, but why is this so important? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 19:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Ask [[User:RobSmith|this guy]]. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::It is a reasonable comparison perhaps, but I should like to hear a reason for its inclusion contained within the article. We could just as easily compare it to the soccer WC or the cricket WC or the world series etc. I would like to hear why the superbowl in particular is the prefered comparison. (And I don't care at all that NFL is related to rugby in its infancy) --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:48, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::What sort of TV viewship ratings does the World Cup average in comparison to the Superbowl? how much does a 30 second ad spot cost in comparison to the Superbowl? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::::A typical Superbowl gets 93 million viewers apparently, practically all of them in the States. Cumulative TV audience for the 2007 World Cup was 4.2 billion over 42 matches, so an average of 100 million per match with the highest figures being for the final. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:36, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::::Not sure why that is relevant, but I'd say the total expenditure worldwide for a 30 second ad at halftime in the WC final would be about the same. Of course rugby is a continuous sport so there aren't random ads in the middle of a game. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:03, 28 January 2012 (EST)

==New Zealand==
New Zealand won the Rugby World Cup ''twice'' in the past 25 years? Amazing accomplishment for a (unnecessary insult removed). Perhaps the list in mainspace is a little too Anglo-centric. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:10, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:Anglo-centric? I haven't heard that word outside of a humanities classroom at a university in a long time. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:11, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::Well, sure. In the 24 years cited, only seven countries are credited as champs -- all English speaking members or former members of the British Empire and Commonwealth of nations. Didn't any non-English speaking members of the British Empire win, or other (unnecessary insult removed) besides New Zealand? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:15, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Actually if you count again you will see that only 4 countries have ever won it. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:59, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::::"In the 24 years cited, only seven countries are credited as champs" Really? Wow. In a 4-yearly tournament that's been running for 24 years, how many champions would you expect there to be? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:23, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Got it. So the event is held only once every four years. Perhaps that can be clarified. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Since the article was created several years ago, the second sentence has made it clear that it is held every 4 years. I'm not sure how much clearer it can get. Also, only 4 nations have won in 7 contests, not 7 nations. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 16:48, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Thank you. The WP article states 22 member nations to the Rugby Union, if that is reliable information. I have no idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:53, 29 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Our article says 20. I'd trust that over Wikipedia any day. Is there an official rugby union website we can double check? [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 16:56, 29 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::The International Rugby Board lists [http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html 93] member nations, but of course, not all qualify for the tournament. Why would you trust a source that called Newt Gingrich an orphan for a week and which argues that people are born with the perfect amount of teeth even though most of us need to have our wisdom teeth removed? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 17:13, 29 January 2012 (EST)

John Yoo

2012-01-28T05:37:20Z

ScottDG: Created page with "'''John Yoo''' will possibly become the Attorney General in the Gingrich Administration."

'''John Yoo''' will possibly become the [[Attorney General]] in the [[Gingrich Administration]].

Mike Huckabee

2012-01-28T05:37:10Z

ScottDG:

{{Officeholder
|name=Mike Huckabee
|image=Hdyute7.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Janet Huckabee]] (1974-present)
|religion=Baptist
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Arkansas
|terms=July 15, 1996-January 9, 2007
|preceded=Jim Guy Tucker
|succeeded=[[Mike Beebe]]
|former=n
}}
}}
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is an American politician who served 11 years as governor of Arkansas (1996-2007) and was the runner-up to winner [[John McCain]] in the contest for the 2008 Republican nomination for president. <ref>[http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/mar/04/huckabee-bows-out/ ''Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 Arkansas Online</ref> A former [[Baptists]] minister, he is [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]].

Huckabee, after many years as a television personality and motivational speaker, combines conservative policy positions with a winsome friendly attitude that puts voters at ease. He came under attack as a "tax-and-spend liberal", especially by rival [[Fred Thompson]].<ref>See criticism reported by Jennifer Rubin, "Romney and Huckabee: Club for Growth Comparisons," [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081 from ''Human Events'' Aug. 24, 2007] </ref> Huckabee's funding base was meager, with his family providing much of his organizational support. Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee was viewed favorably by conservatives and Christian organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee would catch on with Republican primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse".<ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref>

Critical to his move from obscurity to the top rank of political contenders was his evangelical base, his conservatism, his appeal to southerners and his winsome personality.<ref> Dan Balz, "Huckabee's Rise and Rise," [http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/10/post_234.html ''Washington Post'' Dec. 10, 2007]; Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin, "Suddenly, Huckabee Is in Romney's Rearview Mirror," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112401338_pf.html ''Washington Post'' Nov. 25, 2007]; "Shields and Brooks Mull Iowa Election Push, Baseball Scandal" [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/sbbaseball_12-14.html PBS, Dec. 14, 2007]</ref>
After losing to McCain Huckabee became a contributor on Fox News <ref>http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/12/huckabee-joins-fox-as-contributor/ Huckabee joins Fox as Contributor </ref> and now hosts his own show called 'Huckabee.'

Conservatives in Arkansas and nationally have attacked his very lenient policy of pardoning criminals, some of whom went on to commit horrendous crimes, such as Maurice Clemmons, who murdered four police officers in Seattle in Nov. 2009. Other conservatives defend his actions in terms of Christian forgiveness. "This disaster is just one of Huckabee’s ill-considered clemency legacies," said [[Michelle Malkin]], while [[Rush Limbaugh]] referred to Clemmons as "Huckabee's Willie Horton". Huckabee faced conservative criticism during the 2008 primaries for granting a pardon to convicted rapist Wayne DuMond. Like Clemmons, DuMond returned to a life of crime, earning a second conviction before dying in prison in 2005.<ref> Conservatives lambasted Democratic presidential nominee [[Mike Dukakis]] in 1992 for his actions as governor in allowing Horton to go free. See [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30014.html Andy Barr, "Conservatives hammer Mike Huckabee over shooting," ''Politico'' Nov. 30, 2009]</ref>

He will most likely be the [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]] in the [[Gingrich Administration]]

==Career==
Huckabee was born and raised in Hope, Arkansas into a working class family.<ref> He did not overlap in Hope with [[Bill Clinton]] (1946- ) who was also born in Hope; Clinton left as a small child.</ref> Huckabee in his early teens became a radio announcer and preacher. He attended nearby Oachita Baptist College (BA 1975), and studied theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas (1976-80, no degree.) He was minister at Baptist churches in Pine Bluff and Texarkana, Arkansas in the 1980s, gaining fame for his preaching style and for his religious shows on television. He was elected in 1989 as president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention, with 490,000 members; he was elected as a moderate in opposition to the hardline conservatives.

Huckabee is the author of health books featuring his exercise and weight-loss exercise program, and bass guitar player for his rock band, Capitol Offense. He is married to Janet (née McCain); they have three children.

==2008 Caucuses and Primaries==
''Main Article: [[Mike Huckabee 2008 Presidential Campaign]]''

Almost unknown in mid 2007, he climbed the polls steadily and won the closely watched Iowa caucus on Jan. 3, 2008. His base of support comprises "born again" evangelical Christians, who comprise 35% of the GOP voters.<ref>. Evangelicals comprise 48%-68% of Republicans in the South and border states, 47% in Iowa, and only 11% in New Hampshire. Andrew Kohut, "The G.O.P.’s Unanswered Question," [http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/the-gops-unanswered-question/ ''New York Times'' Jan. 11, 2008]</ref>

Huckabee's campaign started to take off in summer 2007 after the high profile [[Ames Straw Poll]], where he came in 2nd place (18%) to Gov. Romney's 32%, ahead of Sen. Brownback's 15%. He won second place despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote. His victory placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref><ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref> His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm, reasonable and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.

He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "valuesdebate".<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined.<ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref>

Poll numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability had him steadily moving up in key primary states. He was victorious in the Republican Caucuses at the [[Iowa Caucuses]]<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref>, and came in third place in the New Hampshire Primary, where he personally expected to not even place in the top three.<ref>http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-john-mccain-take-early-lead-in-new-hampshire-primary/</ref>

Huckabee perfected the shoestring operation. He raised only $2.3 million by October 2007, less than 5% of the money of each main rival. He never had enough money to send advance teams to organize events or drum up crowds, nor could he afford fund-raising operations, private polls, big-name political consultants, or a staff of policy advisers and media experts. He relied on volunteers from churches and the home-school movement to schedule his events. The retail politics of the first states did not cost much. He won in Iowa by relying on his quick wit, fluent oratory, and in lieu of commercials, as many TV and radio talk-show appearances as he could schedule. To draw crowds his rallies featured Hollywood star [[Chuck Norris]] and his own playing the bass guitar with local rock bands. As the election calendar turned to larger states he lacked the cash to compete, so in late Jan. 2008 he cut back on Florida operations to concentrate on a few smaller, overlooked southern states on Feb. 5.<ref>David D. Kirkpatrick, "Huckabee’s Money Woes Curtail Campaign," [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/huckabees-money-woes-curtail-campaign/ ''New York Times'' Jan. 22. 2008]</ref>

He came in third in the [[Michigan]] primaries and a close second to McCain in [[South Carolina]]. He came fourth in the Florida Primary, losing to McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. Although he lost ground after a consistent string of defeats, he continued on to [[Super Tuesday]]. He succeeded in [[Alabama]], [[Arkansas]] (his home state), [[Georgia]], [[Tennessee]] and [[West Virginia]]. His success helped cause Mitt Romney to withdraw from the race. Despite McCain's unbeatable lead in delegates, Huckabee continued on trying to cause a split convention. He won the primaries in [[Kansas]] and [[Louisiana]]. But he lost all the primaries on [[Super Tuesday II]] and McCain succeeded in gaining the 1,191 delegates needed to win. Huckabee withdrew and endorsed Senator McCain.

He spoke at the Republican National Convention in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket, along with his former rivals, [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], and [[Sam Brownback]].

== Record as Governor ==
As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee both cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas legislature enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and fuels taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature.

In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors".<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In a controversial move, Huckabee aggressively pushed for the release of [[Wayne DuMond]], a serial rapist who had raped a 17-year-old girl, [[Ashley Stevens]]. Conservative Christians came in support of DuMond, after he had converted to Christianity in prison. Huckabee became DuMond's public advocate, writing him a personal letter of support and lobbying for his release to the state parole board. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45053</ref> The parole board agreed. Huckabee has denied having any involvement with Wayne DuMond, and his website claims he had not pressured the state parole board, despite three of the parole board members saying he had done so.

== Political Beliefs ==
===Taxes===
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[FairTax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Spending===
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million.<ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref> Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Abortion===
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life.

He would favor [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception.

===Marriage===
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref>

===Second Amendment Rights===
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed [[Handgun permits|handgun permit]] holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref>

===Immigration===
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy [[immigration]] bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref>

==Vertical Politics==
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering [[Partisan politics in the United States|partisanship]]. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It's what I call 'Vertical Politics'." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref>

== Personal ==
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]
Huckabee was born in Hope, Arkansas, the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give Hope one more chance."
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.''<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, Texas; he graduated in only two and a half years.

The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in New Orleans, the Red Rocks Amphitheater in Denver, and for two presidential inauguration balls.
[[Image:Huckabee1.jpg|thumb|290px|left|[http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-09-2007/0004719299&EDATE= Dec. 17, 2007 with cover story]]]
==Quotes==
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref>
* "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."<ref>''http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx''[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx]</ref>
* "To think that we're going to go lock up 12 million people, or even round them up and drive them to the border and let them go, might make a great political speech, but it's not going to happen." ''[[Washington Post]]'', May, 2006.
* "(I) propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country." ''Secure America Plan", December, 2007.
* "I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles and I still believe in them." (In response to questions about his continuing campaign even after the liberal news media dismissed his primary campaign as a failure.)<ref>''Mike Huckabee's campaign rolls on'' February 2008 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578452/Mike-Huckabee%27s-campaign-rolls-on.html]</ref>

==Endorsements==
====Organizations====
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref>

===South Carolina===
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary.<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref>

Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]].<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref> During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.

===Virginia===
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>

===New Hampshire===
Huckabee picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref> Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007

==External Videos==
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection]
===Supporter Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]
===Personal Story===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]
===Ads===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]

===Speeches===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]
==Bibliography==
* Barone, Michael, and Richard E, Cohen. ''Almanac of American Politics: 2006'' (2005)

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Arkansas Governors]]
[[Category:Former Governors]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Clergy]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Fox News Channel

2012-01-28T05:36:57Z

ScottDG:

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. For over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

The Fox News Channel heavily favors [[neoconservatives]] and generally avoids or even sides against [[conservatives]] on important social issues. Its lead commentators strongly support [[Newt Gingrich]] for president, and FNC may have cancelled [[Glenn Beck]]'s popular show because of his opposition to Newt. The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[abortion]].

It is expected that a Fox News analyst will be named as [[White House Press Secretary]] in the [[Gingrich Administration]].

==Founding==
The Fox News channel was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced" and has daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html New York Times, January 9, 2010]</ref>

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, and the rest of running a liberal propaganda machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===

Talk to any Fox News-hating liberal and you'll here the same old regurgitated talking point- ''"Fox is not Fair & Balanced,"'' ''"Rightwing propaganda."'' One network, Fox News, has twice the number of opposing commentators than does all media sources combined. If you add up the major media properties; ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek -- you get a total of five [[Token conservative | so-called conservative]] personalities among hundreds of liberals. At the least, Fox News employs the following [[liberal]]s;

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Ed Henry]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every Democratic Party talking point, against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. [Citation Needed]

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Obama ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|'''At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.''' --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Shepard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. EST on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}
==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}
=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>
=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== Also See ==

* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''
* '''[[Roger Ailes]]'''

== External Links ==

* [http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category: Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Rick Perry

2012-01-28T05:36:53Z

ScottDG:

{{Officeholder
|name=Rick Perry
|image=Rick Perry.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Anita Thigpen Perry]]
|religion=Methodist
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Texas
|terms=December 21, 2000-Present
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|succeeded=
|former=n
}}
}}

'''James Richard "Rick" Perry''' (b. March 4, 1950) has served as the [[Republican]] Governor of [[Texas]] since December 2000, when he succeeded then-Governor [[George W. Bush]] and was elected to full four-year terms in 2002 and 2006. He easily won an unprecedented third full term in November 2010, after defeating by a wide margin U.S. Senator [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the GOP primary in March and then the [[Democratic]] former mayor of [[Houston, Texas|Houston]], Bill White, in the general election.

In August 2011, Perry entered the [[presidential election 2012|2012 race for President]]. His key positions include rejection of the theory of man-made [[global warming]], equal time for [[creationism]] and [[evolution]] in schools, pro-[[Second Amendment]], and [[pro-life]] with exceptions. Perry dropped out of the race in January 2011, and supported [[Newt Gingrich]]. He will probably become [[Vice President ]] in the [[Gingrich Administration]].

==Career==

A native of rural Haskell, Texas, north of Abilene, Perry obtained a degree in animal science from [[Texas A&M University]] in College Station. He is a former Democratic member of the Texas House of Representatives, having been first elected in 1984. He switched to Republican affiliation in 1989. The next year, he was elected Texas Agriculture Commissioner, having narrowly unseated the two-term populist Democrat Jim Hightower, a vocal supporter of [[Jesse Jackson]] in Texas. Perry won his first full term as governor in 2002, when he defeated the wealthy Laredo businessman A. R. "Tony" Sanchez by a three-to-two margin. He was reelected to another full term in 2006 with only 39 percent of the vote because the other 61 percent of the ballots was split among four rival general election candidates, including a former Repubican state comptroller, Carole Strayhorn of [[Austin, Texas|Austin]], who ran as an independent.

Perry's brother-in-law, the brother of [[Anita Thigpen Perry]], is Joseph E. Thigpen (born ca. 1946), a former district attorney and county attorney in West Texas. In 1994, Perry, reelected as the agriculture commissioner, asked incoming Republican Governor [[George W. Bush]] to name Joseph Thigpen to a vacancy on the state appeals court in Eastland County, Texas. Acting on a check into Thigpen's record by political advisor [[Karl Rove]], Bush declined to appoint Thigpen to the bench. As a county attorney, Thigpen had been criticized for not being available when the commissioner's court needed his counsel. In 1998, Rick Perry became lieutenant governor in the second George W. Bush gubernatorial term. The Thigpen appointment controversy has been mentioned as a possible cause of a potential breach between Governors Bush and Perry.<ref>Will Weissert, "Perry-Bush camps still feel old dispute", ''Laredo Morning Times'', September 19, 2011, p. 8A</ref>

==Controversies==

In 2007, Perry attempted to mandate by executive order a requirement that the [[HPV vaccine]] be administered to young girls as a condition of entering school. Defiant, Perry then felt he had no choice but to sign a bill overriding his mandate because it had been passed by a huge majority in both houses of the legislature.

He was criticized by the ''Dallas Morning News'' for traveling to Turkey in early June 2007 to give a speech to a "secret forum" on the topic of [[federalism]], a topic on which Perry has little established expertise.<ref>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-perry_31tex.ART.State.Edition1.43b926a.html</ref>

On June 15, 2007, Perry vetoed nearly fifty bills in one day. He also asked that legislators to pass more conservative bills, especially restricting freedom of movement for radical homosexual activists, in order to prevent harm to young people from their vile liberal propaganda.<ref>http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/138969.html here</ref>.

The vetoed House Bill 2006 would have added protections to property owners facing eminent domain proceedings.

In 2009, Perry drew fire for numerous statements that suggested Texas' legal right to secede from the union if it wanted to, a long-discredited legal interpretation which was the main argument of the terrorist [[Republic of Texas]] movement.<ref>[http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/17/0417gop.html "Governor says Texas is one state that could leave union, though he's not pushing it"]</ref> While such statements were viewed with favor by the Texas Republican Party and helped him win the 2010 gubernatorial election, it is unclear whether they will come back to haunt his 2012 election prospects.

Perry's prayer rally scheduled for August 5, 2011 was strongly attacked by the left as a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state," which is actually a liberal misreading of the [[United States Constitution]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/opinion/how-to-respond-to-rick-perrys-response.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp "How to respond to Rick Perry's 'Response'"]</ref> According to investigative reports by the ''Houston Chronicle'', Perry's tithing and charitable giving combined make up a paltry 0.5 percent, or $750 of annual gubernatorial compensation of $150,000 annually, excluding his generous housing allowance.<ref>[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/new/7607414.html "Perry puts faith on display but offers little for collection plate"]</ref> His office's response to the report is that "he refuses to talk about his faith."

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.governor.state.tx.us/ Official Website]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnG_njvuoyA The Left Is "Never Going To Like Us, So Let's Stop Trying To Curry Favor With Them"]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Perry, Rick}}

[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Texas Governors]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Former Democrats]]
[[Category:Texas]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

Talk:Feminism

2012-01-27T23:30:57Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by Harveydent (talk) to last revision by SharonW

==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

::Agreed. I suggest cutting out all abortion references except one: Give it a bullet point in the list of goals, and no more. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

:What you say was true, back when the feminists really were seeking legal equality - before the radical feminists hijacked it for their attacks on family life, hate of tradition, and abortionist agenda. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::::Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are ''about'' feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? [[User:Reaganite|Reaganite]] 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== The list of feminist views ==

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in [[America]]. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am removing the part about refusing to admit the wrongness of their ideology; it could be said about any ideology, but it is not listed on the Creationism or Christianity pages (or the Aethism one). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::How is removing an unsourced statement censorship? I would not take seriously any encyclopedia in which that statement appeared without evidence. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really not sure about this list: I think this focuses too much on the radical feminists - the bra-burning, men-hating feminists from the sixties and seventies. But hasn't feminism developed, become more mainstream? For example, I'd consider myself a (conservative) feminist, and almost all of my girlfriends are too. We'd reject all or almost all of the points listed in the article:
- Yes, of course men and women are different; physically and mentally. We certainly don't believe in falsely imposing equality of outcomes - only of opportunity.
- Oppose chivalry? Nope. It's charming that a few men still open doors, give up seats for us. I don't know anyone who would complain about that.
- View traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal? Nope.
- Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family? No-one I know.
- shirk traditional gender activities, like baking? I really don't understand this one. You're a feminist if you don't bake biscuits? Or is this a synecdoche for wider home-making activities?
- support affirmative action for women? Again, no. Affirmative action does no good in the short, medium or long-term. That's more a liberal value than a feminist one, wouldn't you say?
- prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do - This is straying into the dungaree-wearing radical lesbian feminist stereotype. Most feminists don't care what other women wear, as long as they're not wearing the same outfit as you at a cocktail party.

Look, I could go on, but my point is that this article paints feminism as the ''bête noire'' of conservative values and, while this may be true of more radical / historical feminism, it's too simplistic to cover the very, very large number of women worldwide who identify as feminists and conservatives.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 07:34, 21 January 2011 (EST)

==Difficulty of defining feminism==

It's not easy to define [[feminism]]. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support [[equal rights]] to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which '''do not''' assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only [[Simone de Beauvoir]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Ridiculous Number of Quotes==

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article ([[Quotes by Radical Feminists]] and [[Quotes by Anti-Feminists]]) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

=="Ideological Edits"==

''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]''

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) '''in addition''' to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

''prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women''

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

''prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do''

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

''Quotes from fictional characters''

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children '''instead''' of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should '''support''' parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:

:*Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
:*A series of quotes from a ''fictional character'' in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism

:If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. ''What Feminists believe is well known''. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.

:::::Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

*Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
::#The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child '''instead''' of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should '''support''' parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#Quotes from a ''fictional character'' should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
::Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?
*''believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by [[parents]] in raising children.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#The thesis of the book is that it takes a village as well as the parents to raise a child, at the moment the entry reads that it takes a village rather than the parents, so yes the exclusivity of the role is denied, but not the role itself (by memory the book states that parents have a significant and unique role to play). I did have alternate language in my original edit: ''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should assist parents in raising children'' or something along those lines that clarifies that the position taken by the book is not to replace the parents - edit conflict, not adjusted for Feebasfactor's comment
:#There may be some confusion between role reversal and the destruction of roles. Role reversal in your example would be men baking cookies and women being expected not to bake cookies, and women taking traditionally male jobs with men being expected not to take those jobs. By the destruction of roles it is expected that both men and women have an equal right to bake cookies, and that both men and women have an equal right to take whatever job they want to, I believe the latter is closer to the desire of mainstream feminists to have equal roles and to breakdown the concept of gender, rather than pushing for a matriarchal society.
:#I'm not entirely happy that a one line quote from a blog in response to another article can be used to represent mainstream feminism, but it's your encyclopedia
:#There are quotes from a fictional character, I don't see why these should be in the article (using the same logic someone could use quotes from a fictional American president in a book to criticise America).
:Hope this clears it up. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Aren't the fictional quotes a tiny percentage of the quotes, and aren't they by a feminist author?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"''? Though I have met many feminists, I have never met a woman, ever, who felt that women should only wear pants. I know women who do not wear pants, because they feel the Bible calls them to wear only skirts, though this is not true for all of the Christian women I know, or even a majority of them. Most women, feminist or not, dress according to what they will be doing. If they will be hiking in the woods giving a lesson on the forest habitat, they will probably wear jeans. If they are going to a wedding or a funeral, they will almost certainly wear a dress. Some women personally prefer to wear dresses more than pants, or vice versa, but most women, feminist or not, don't feel that everyone should dress as they do. If the article is going to state that feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"'', then there should be a really good citation to show this. Certainly you can find many articles where women discuss the pros and cons of pants and/or dresses, but I've never seen anything that supported the claim made here. An example to the contrary would be the A Dress A Day blog<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I've added another cite, and frankly am surprised that anyone would dispute this feminist preference to dress like men in order to make an ideological statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::The whole pants thing was a big deal at the time because there were people & institutions who felt that women should *never* wear pants - restaurants that wouldn't serve women wearing pants, schools that wouldn't allow girls to wear pants (even in freezing cold weather - and skirts in those days were *short*!), and so on. Feminists of the time believed that women should be allowed to wear pants if they wished. (Not that they *should* wear pants.) Nowadays, most American women, feminist or not, wear both pants and skirts, just because we like to, or for practical reasons, not for political reasons. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:55, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: The 1970s is "modern". Perhaps a time period should be added to the entry? By the 1960s "modern" feminism was in full bloom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Is the goal of the entry to describe feminism as it is understood today by the majority of women who consider themselves feminists? (I'm assuming this would be the best approach, though of course the history is of interest as well.) The radical femimism of the '60's and '70's was, well, radical, but I think that the kind of extreme views described in this article would be foreign to most women today who consider themselves feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

<- The section of the article in dispute is written in the present tense (''"Specifically, modern feminists tend to"'' as opposed to ''"Specifically, modern feminist tended to"'') after having described the era of the 1970's in the past tense, therefore the points should describe those beliefs held by mainstream feminists today. I'm not too sure many modern mainstream feminists favour wearing pants or role reversal, just as we don't see burning bras or (too many) claims that all sexual relationships in marriage are rape. In short, what was mainstream in the 1970's appears to now be classified as radical compared to the views of modern feminists, which appear to be more about breaking down gender inequality and the like. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree - though I would add that many of the ideas discussed in the 70's were radical feminism (not mainstream feminism) even then.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], Thank you for your grammar edit! It really helps! While we're cleaning up this article, here's another item that might need to be changed. I don't think the statement that feminists ''"oppose single-sex schooling"'' is accurate. There are rather a lot of feminists at all-girl colleges like Smith and Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke. Also, I can't see your recent changes on the main article page, only the history page - I don't know if it's me or Conservapedia. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's stupid to argue about this sort of thing on an article discussion page. Just add a quote from a feminist who supports it. This goes for girls' schools, dresses, stay-at-home moms and all the other stuff above. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Are we trying to use the view of one feminist to represent the views of all, or are we accurately trying to report on the collective views of mainstream feminism? If it's the latter then a single quote from one feminist won't do the job. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Feminism and choice==

Feminists say they '''only want choice''' while actually asserting various "shoulds" and "oughts".

Wearing dresses is strongly discouraged by feminists; dressing like men is strongly encouraged. Indeed, all sorts of feminine behavior in the workplace is discouraged, and we '''all''' know that [[Simone de Beauvoir]] condemned the [[choice]] of woman staying home to raise her and her husband's children.

What we object to here is the [[liberal deceit|pretense]] that feminism supports women choosing either traditional female roles or modern "liberated" ones. They use coercion quite openly. Pretending that they do not is something you can do on your own blog, using your [[freedom of press]] to tell lies. You can't do it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:According to her article she made those views in 1949, we are trying to discuss the views of modern feminists, or more specifically those around in 2008. As has been stated above, these are different to the views held in the past. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed Poor explains this extremely well. I don't know what TheGySom is referencing about 1949, but that is surely "modern" also. [[Feminism]] plainly represents views about how women ''should'' act, and women who disagree with that ideology are ostracized and ridiculed by the more militant feminists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Simone de Beauvoir wrote her controversial book ''The Second Sex'' in 1949. It is relevant to the history of feminism, but in no way should be used as a source to describe the views of mainstream twenty-first century feminists, as it was written almost 60 years ago. We've come a long way since then - most of today's feminists weren't even born when the book came out. I'm a woman, I have friends who are feminist and friends who definitely aren't, none of them have ever tried to encourage or discourage me from wearing dresses. Some of my friends wear only dresses/skirts for religious reasons (Christian or Jewish), but I've never met a woman who would not wear dresses for political reasons. The idea just doesn't ring true to me. Certainly for some activities or professions pants are a more practical and/or more safe choice, and some women tend towards pants or tend towards dresses for themselves, but those are not political or ideological choices, they are a matter of personal style and/or practicality. Feminists in the '70's fought for the right to wear pants in places and situations where it had not previously been allowed, mostly for practical and personal style reasons. I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just to give a woman's perspective. So far, the only sources in support of the idea that feminists encourage dressing like men have been offhand comments in blogs. Can we find some more solid sources for this idea if it is to be included in the article?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm sure there are millionaire communists who say they have no desire to interfere with private property, and that they don't know any other communists who do either. And they would be right about themselves and their friends, but wrong about the ideology of communism.

:::: Likewise here. The ''[[sine qua non]]'' of modern feminism is for women to act like men. Why would clothes be excluded from that? They aren't. I've already provided two references and there are probably more, but I'm getting the sense that no amount of citations will persuade you because you know what you and your friends think about clothes. I suggest you spend some time researching this and ask women familiar with the feminist agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name Changes==
The article says that feminists ''"refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes"''. However, the article used as a citation seems to be saying the opposite. It is an article about the complexity of such decisions for 21st century women, and how there are many different approaches to changing one's name, and how quite a few feminists are now changing their name to, one way or another, include their husband's name. (The author, who is marrying soon, begins the article with 8 of her own options, including hyphenation, etc.) The article goes on to give quite a few examples of feminist women who made various choices, for a wide variety of reasons. Based on the cited article, I think a more accurate statement for our article would be ''"feminists are likely to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to change their last name to their husband's when they marry."'' Two relevant quotes from the article: ''"...they are doing what they can, making meaning of their own, focusing on what they do with their lives as much as what they do with their names. And by the way, isn't that the whole idea of feminism?"'' and ''"Hey, I'm a stay-at-home mom who took her husband's name and earns a fraction of our household income but none of that makes me any less of a feminist. Because for me, feminism is about respecting women and men and being able to make whatever lifestyle choices you want."'' <ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> I did not make this change, even though the article is now unlocked, because I'd like input from others first - I think that, together, we can make this a better article.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==Question for the Editor--==
I just found my way to your site via Google, and read "Feminism." I noticed that your editorial policy says that you're not allowing the use of material that isn't accurate. That site says that early feminists were "suffragettes." The suffragettes were English, in fact -- in the use, the folks who supported the right to vote for women were suffragists, from Woodrow Wilson to good ol' Theodore Roosevelt. Your writers also have no idea that the term "feminist" at times has been somewhat conservative (hey! surprise!), as when the National Women's Party supported an Equal Rights Amendment while most women opposed it. In the meantime, in the twentieth century, some Republican women would have been comfortable calling themselves "feminists," from Margaret Chase Smith to Oveta Culp Hobby. The term has had somewhat varied meanings over the course of the century, and any accurate description should reflect that. Interested readers could check out Catherine Rymph's Republican Women, published by the very reputable U.North Carolina Press. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== Unsourced quotes ==

There are tons of unsourced quotes in this article, and I will go through the list to see how many I can actually source. I will remove those quotes I couldn't find any info on, and I'll post them here so others can re-add them if they do find reliable sources. The key words are: Where was it said, and when. Evidence should be supplied. Quote-sites that simply say "She said so." are off-limits.

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan
I couldn't find anything more than just anti-feminist comments and "Men Rights" sites. No mention of where or when she supposedly said so. (Update: Found a site that says it's from "Sisterhood is Powerful". --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT))

A somewhat special case is the next one:
*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan
I found out that this quote comes from her introduction to the 1970 book "Sisterhood is Powerful". I also found this [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|Halimat: Following is a quote from you. Assuming that you weren't misquoted, do you still feel this way? How are women to get ahead without collaberation from those who currently hold the majority of legislative power? "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power."

Robin Morgan: That quote is from the early 1970s and fortunately both the movement and I have matured in terms of developing a much more sophisticated range of tactics and strategies, due to our enormous numbers, than we ever could have imagined back in the late 60s and early 70s. While it is still true that "pale males" are at the top of the "food chain" - more men are changing every day. They're more involved with their children and families and on every level, from slowly learning to use Ms. through to adopting and adapting to anti-sexual harrassment workplace rules, men have been changing. It's not enough by far, but it is a start. And it's the power of the women's movement that has brought them even this far.}}
I'll leave the quote in the article, but I will also link to that interview so people can get a more modern reflection on the quote. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

One more from Robin Morgan:
*"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human."
It's a really nice quote, so I regret that I couldn't find any proper sourcing for it. :/ --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Took out two (for now) from Dworkin:
*"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"Ice and Fire" is a ''novel''. As in ''fiction''. As such, I won't treat this as her own quote, just like I don't claim that authors like King or Clancy endorse every sentence from their books as their own views.
*Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
This quote is [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp attributed] to "Liberty", but I couldn't find it in her Bibliography, so I'll cut it until somebody actually figures out whether it's a book (and whether it's fiction or non-fiction) or a paper or something. Citing made-up books sounds vaguely unlikely, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 17:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Dworkin again:
*"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."
Couldn't find any proper sourcing, only quote pages that simply say she said it, but not where or when. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Quotations and flowing prose==

There are way too many quotations here. Sure, we've proved the point. There's a lot of nasty things that were said by genuine, card-carrying feminists. But quotes don't make an article.

I want to know the roots of feminism, what it originally tried to do, what else it started to do, and how it did (and does) differ from simply "making sure women don't get mistreated". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Agree with the "way too many quotations" bit. A few quotes from several eras to illustrate how feminism developed and matured would be nice. If that's not possible, just crop it down. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::It probably wouldn't hurt to review this. I am also pleased Miles that you have chosen a constructive approach of finding and adding references instead of just complaining. There is a greater chance of seeing constructive changes occur under that format than merely confronting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==I think we have misrepresented Jilly Cooper==

I think Jilly Cooper, the veteran right-wing journo and toff, would be surprised to find herself identified as a feminist and downright astonished to be labelled a member of SCUM. Somebody has got a little confused here. (Or else they are being mischievious).

== Suggestion for separation ==

I personally feel it would be beneficial to make two articles on this subject. What's described here is what many call "radical feminism" whereas average everyday feminism is quite different. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can assure you that the generalizations made here are on the most extreme examples of feminists. -EternalCritic

I agree, much of what is addressed here under the heading of "feminism" would more properly be described as "radical feminism" (of the all women should be lesbians/all heterosexual intercourse is rape slant), and much of the substantive article seems to be un-cited impressions that appear to be sourced in popular culture (for example, if the ideological doctrine is too difficult to define, how can it be said that *all* feminists balk at chivalry or belittle family women?). Can the lengthy list of sound-bite quotations (from which the reader is apparently supposed to cobble together an idea of what feminism is) be removed to ultimately be replaced with an attempt to seriously engage with the tenants of feminism with a stronger focus on peer-reviewed academia reflecting a broader overview of the field rather than a relatively small group of extremists? -- [[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 11:28, August 28 2011

== Reversion explained ==

The edit summary to the last edit said, "I changed some awkward phrasing. I also think the bullets should be made into one coherent paragraph. Thoughts?" In fact, that edit introduced liberal bias and censored conservative truth. It was fully reverted even though it did also include some harmless stylistic changes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that don't have real citations like:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

and

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

I think these need real citations or they should be removed. Also, quotes about feminists should be in a separate section than quotes from feminists. Pat Robertson is mixed in with a bunch of feminists right now, under the "Other" heading.

--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

== Enough quotations? ==

This article could make a more mature examination of feminism than putting up a bunch of quotations. --[[User:Marxian21|Marxian21]] 22:53, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== "No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" ==

I cannot find the phrase in either of the two references given. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:12, 30 January 2010 (EST)

:Please feel free to delete that phrase, then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:18, 30 January 2010 (EST)
::I would, but TK has already reverted someone who edited it out--and I don't want to anger him. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:22, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Modern feminists are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and even those who are not pro-abortion are still anti-motherhood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

==Full rewrite==

I like the quotes, and we certainly need a conservative critique of modern "radical" feminism, but the movement has also had its good points. There are even places/issues where currents in contemporary feminism match up with conservative ideas.

The idea that men shouldn't use their power to abuse women is a longstanding conservative idea (see [[Chivalry]]), although this is nothing more than the general idea that no one, male or female, should abuse his power; it doesn't matter if it's man to woman, white to black, rich to poor, educated to ignorant, etc. However, many feminists bristle at the idea of accepting '''any''' help from men (such help seen as condescending at best). Most conservative Christians oppose [[pornography]] and [[sexual slavery]], and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 8 September 2010 (EDT)

== feminism and obesity ==

feminism and obesity: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html I will leave it up to others decide what constitutes feminism as I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Create a feminism and obesity article ==

Consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:The blog you want cited makes a ''huge'' leap in its conclusions. Being a working mother does not automatically translate into being a feminist. I would guess the majority of working women are in the job market because there is a need for a second income to support a family, given the cost of basic necessities such as rent, food, gasoline, electricity, medical costs, clothing, etc. I know that is the case in my situation. We can't pay for the basics on my husband's salary alone. We haven't had a vacation in years. Most of my friends are in the same situation. And the blog completely ignores the single working mother - what is she supposed to do? Not work? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Age of the Earth

2012-01-27T23:30:27Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by Harveydent (talk) to last revision by Adambro

The statement that "Charles Lyell supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in Principles of Geology" seems inadequate. Did Lyell set forth a scientific theory about an Old Earth in 1830? I'm skeptical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:Lyell was a geologist who created several theories related to the geologic age of the earth, including I believe uniformitarianism, and contained in his book ''Principles of Geology''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a copy of "Principles of Geology". The table of Contents is in HTML, but the text in PDF. [http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/contents.htm] The first few chapters are about the development of ideas of the age of the earth.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:45, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

==Helium diffusion, polonium halos, C14 dating==

All of these methods give ample evidence for a young earth(C14 works best for more recent things). I was wondering if anyone wanted to write about these(If not, I can do some independent research for this article, but I'm in school right now so I can't promise anything).

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 23:26, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
:We already briefly discuss these in [[Young Earth Creationism]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explanation ==

The article doesn't say that individual scientists haven't been around for billions of years, it says that the scientific ''community'' hasn't been around that long. The people of God ''have'' been around for six thousand or so years, so have direct, first-hand records of the earliest days of creation. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:41, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:The age of the scientific community and what the term "scientific community" means can be debated, and that's the point - this debate and the current debate over which group has the more accurate age of the Earth shouldn't be in the overview section of the article but instead represented in the sections dealing with the controversy over the age of the Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 17:41, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

==Atheism and Old Earth Theories==

The opening section of this article currently states that “atheists ... insist that Earth is somehow 4.5 billion years old” but it implies that all atheists (or only atheists) believe the Earth is billions of years old. This is incorrect and the section should be clarified: it is the majority scientific community that assert the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of religious orientations of individuals in this community. Simply put, not all atheists believe the Earth is billions of years old and not all Christians or others with religion believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:40, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

: Would you likewise object to a statement that "Republicans oppose Obama's policies"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

:: Yes, it's to general of a statement – ''conservatives'' oppose the ''liberal policies'' of the Obama administration, or it can be said that the Republican Party (leadership) opposes the Obama administration. Not all Republicans are conservative on all issues (e.g. the Log Cabin Republicans) and not all of Obama's polices are liberal (e.g. keeping Guantanamo Bay's prison open). The statement would be similar to asserting that Republicans agree on all issues (otherwise why would Republicans bother to have a presidential primary) and that the Obama administration is consistently liberal (they've done plenty of flip flopping to try and gain votes in the upcoming election). So bringing this back to the current article, the overview section (or opening section, whatever one would like to call it) should be more explicit on which groups are putting forward the Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth theories. When it comes to Old-Earth theories - "atheists" is to general of a term and insinuates that those of the scientific community that support Old-Earth theories are without religion. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Your objection would silence many useful observations. Under your view, is it wrong to say that obesity is unhealthy? There may be one case out of a million where the person is actually better off getting fatter. If that case exists, would you object to commenting about the majority?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Unfortunately, you've missed my point. What I was referring to is the need to avoid over generalizing and casting all old Earth supporters into the ranks of atheists; there is a need to rework the opening section of this article for greater clarity. To say that supporters of an old Earth are atheists is making too big of an assumption, especially if one's religion espouses an old Earth.
:::: And I hardly think your analogy of obesity and health applies to your original loaded question regarding the political persuasions of Americans: I'm sure far more than 1 in a million Democrats oppose Obama and far more than 1 in a million Republicans support Obama's more conservative polices - America's not that black & white, nor is the issue of who are the supporters of old Earth vs. young Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:44, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=6 thousand years old=

I was wondering, is there a reason why this number is written in this way? personally I would either say "6,000 years old" or "six thousand years old", but I wanted to ask for your opinions before changing it. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:42, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:No particular reason. Either of your suggested edits would be fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks, change implemented. Personally I think that little, apparently meaningless details like this improve the perceived quality of an encyclopedia. I chose 6,000 years because it's more "visually immediate" than "six thousand". --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

::You're right. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=Exact age=

I have not been able to find out an exact age. It is always referred to as "about 6,000 y.o".
Has anyone found a study calculating the exact age of the Earth ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

: No, I haven't, and wouldn't expect to find one. Dates of events far more recent than creation are in dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Tends to be anywhere from 5-10k years. Depends on if you follow ushers example and dont think there mght be some names missing from the lists of names in genesis and the gospels.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:24, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Why the removal? ==

Why was the mention of Old Earth removed? The fact of the matter is, the majority of the scientific community has accepted radiometric dating as true, and that the Earth is in fact 4 billion years old. Also, why does it matter what historic figures felt the age of the Earth to be. Isn't this an appeal to tradition? Our ancestors also believed that, prior to Christianity, the Sun and Moon were Gods. Should their opinions be held to be correct as well? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 08:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::First, must? Second, secularist/deistic fashions among scientists don't carry a lot of weight. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::So if they disagree with you they are automatically inferior and their opinion matters less? That's dancing awfully close to censorship isn't it? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 09:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't see in his reply anywhere that he stated he disagreed with those ideas, and whether or not anyone does is irrelevant. Passing scientific fads never carry much weight, regardless of our personal views on the matter. (Conservative, please correct me if I misstate your views). Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:40, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all? We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism? We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::No, but you need to state where the majority of the scientific community lies and what evidence they place stock in. Most of those who are not members of the YEC (which is a minority) do not hold to the idea that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
JohnPaul, you wrote: "The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years." You are either not being truthful or you are seriously deceived. Any cursory review of the history of science shows the scientific opinion about the age of the earth has changed multiple times and all the while this was occurring there was plenty of scientific progress which was going on. Plus, there is plenty of science that occurs where the age of the earth is irrelevant to the investigation at hand. In addition, you seriously need a better understanding between mere opinion and fact. For example, it is fact that scientific opinion has changed multiple times about the age of the earth. Now you may say that now it is "near fact" about the age of the earth being whatever age is fashionable now among some errant scientific circle, but given your previously illogical pronouncement please don't expect people to kowtow to your pronouncement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:As I said, since the advent of radiometric dating, the consistent concensus has been that the tests of radiometric dating have all stated that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. If you wish to question radiometric dating then fine, but you should at least mention it as a major stubmling block towards YEC. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Decay rates ==

I don't think this article should say that the assumption that decay rates have stayed constant is "implausible," for the simple reason that it isn't. I don't for a minute think it's a CORRECT assumption, but for it to be an IMPLAUSIBLE one there would have to be a reason why they COULDN'T have remained constant; there is no more reason why they couldn't have remained constant than there is one why they couldn't have changed. Unless someone can give a reason why decay rates MUST change the word "implausible" is not appropriate. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 22:01, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:It is obviously "implausible" because the universe is cooling over time, which would cause decay rates to change. It's no more possible for decay rates to remain constant than it would be for a sun to remain constant in energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 30 December 2011 (EST)

== Decay rates, again ==

Do we discuss anything here or is everything too scared of the 90/10 rule to bother? In changing "unreliable" to "imprecise", I took the time to try to explain in the edit summary why I was doing so yet it seems others can't actually be bothered to explain why they disagree with the change. Once it's simply "Unnecessary Edit" and now you can apparently just indicate you agree with someone else by stating "Consensus". It would be nice to at least have the opportunity of trying to understand the objections to the change. I do wonder if I'd be wasting my time expanding on my reasoning. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:32, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:Since your reasoning is flawed, yes, it would be a waste of your time to expand on it. By the way, nitpicking individual words in a post doesn't count towards your 90/10 count, so focus on creating content, instead of pushing some nonsensical agenda against certain words. Does the word unreliable offend you, or is it that we don't treat evolutionists with kid gloves and euphemisms?
[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)

::I wouldn't accept that it is nitpicking. When I looked up info on some of the variations in decay rate that have been identified, none of them would make a significant difference to the magnitude of the time periods involved. None of them would explain the gap between 6,000-10,000 years old and the billions of years at the other end of the scale. They impact on the precision, not the reliability. That isn't to say there aren't other problems in assuming decay rate is a good way of determining the age of the earth but the possibility of variation in decay rate identified don't support the suggestion that what is known about decay is so wrong that the the figures calculated from it could be millions of times out. The facts as to the known variation of radioactive decay just don't support that. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:58, 10 January 2012 (EST)

So you admit that radioactive dating is wrong, but you won't admit that the results are wrong. I find your arguments to be non-sensical. TypicL liberal claptrap. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:36, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't accept that radiometric dating is wrong or that the results are wrong, at least not to the degree you are alluding. I accept that some variations in decay rate have been identified which can affect the precision to which the method can date samples but what I cannot accept is that those undermine the fundamental principles behind radiometric dating. It seems you're trying to use these variations to suggest that the method must be so wrong that there could be scope for samples thought to be billions of years old actually being 6,000-10,000 years old but I just don't see how the facts as to what is known about those variations supports that. What we have here is a criticism of an assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant followed by what is effectively simply an opposite assumption, that the rate of radioactive decay is completely not a constant. That despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up that assumption. If it is unwise to assume the rate is constant then surely it is just as unwise to assume the rate isn't constant. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:16, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality

2012-01-27T23:12:32Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by Harveydent (talk) to last revision by JHunter

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== length of article ==

This article is very long, making it inconvenient to read. Most of the sections here seem to have their own pages. Editing is locked for regular users, so I can't do it, but has there been any discussion condensing the article to make it more reader-friendly? --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 16:25, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:I was actually thinking of adding some material: '''Black pastors confront [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] for smearing as ‘hate groups’''' pro-family organizations opposed to [[homosexual agenda]]. [http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with [[homosexuality|homosexual]] perversion.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 26 January 2012 (EST)

::I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:::Why don't you write an alternative article and see if the owner of the site likes it better? Show Conservapedia how it's done. I wish you the best should you decide to pursue this endeavor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:51, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I'll take that bet. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:06, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Can you show us outstanding well researched works you have composed already? If so, where are they? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::In journals you've never heard of and books you'll never read. More seriously, you have offered a friendly competition. It is audacious, but I accept your challenge. Out of sportsmanship, we should let the articles speak for themselves instead of starting an argument on the talk page. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 01:44, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Are atheists smarter than the average bear?

2012-01-27T15:57:57Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by ScottDG (talk) to last revision by RedGoliath

Deleting the talk page was a good start. Now you should delete the article too. It's kind of embarrassing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 02:45, 27 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes, it is embarrassing for liberal atheists - especially the [[Soviet Union]] section. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:05, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::This has been bugging me for a while, so I'm finally going to ask it... Why are you wasting your time creating these pointless essays? I know your overall contribution to this site is genuine and meaningful, but this constant stream of pointless essays on atheism comes across as petty and I can't help but think that they are there simply for provocation. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:06, 27 January 2012 (GMT)
::Imagine if, at the back of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was a series of poorly written essays by a single editor where he compares groups he doesn't like to animals, insults their appearance, and includes numerous photos with captions like, "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?" [sic] I imagine that such an inclusion might be considered a joke, something planted by a prankster, without the knowledge of the other editors. If only we could say the same here.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:26, 27 January 2012 (EST)
:::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::Or then again, maybe not every book or website ending in -pedia has to have the same policies just because they have -pedia in the name. Could people please try to be a bit more open-minded?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:46, 27 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I would be perfectly happy to see well thought-out, well written and informative essays put up on this encyclodpedia. But as I stated previously, these essays are nothing more than petty, provocative ramblings. In my mind it's more like vandalism than worthwhile editing. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:51, 27 January 2012 (GMT)

Talk:Essay: Are atheists smarter than the average bear?

2012-01-27T15:55:53Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by RedGoliath (talk) to last revision by CPalmer

Talk:Essay: Are atheists smarter than the average bear?

2012-01-27T15:38:05Z

ScottDG:

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-27T00:59:20Z

ScottDG:

'''''The next Republican presidential debate is on Thursday, January 26 in Jacksonville. The next primary election is on Tuesday, January 31, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
<center><big>'''Candidates who are still running'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, heavily favored by the Establishment, has business experience, was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Romney is a prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner who won the initial primaries in Iowa and New Hampahire. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Was defeated by a landslide in [[South Carolina]], despite being endorsed by foreign policy [[hawks]] [[John McCain]] and [[John Bolton]], and despite having finished a close second in the Iowa caucuses and first in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. Romney has been strong in most of the debates and in national polling but weak in almost every straw poll. The majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The only candidate who stands up to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including his [[pro-life]] positions and his passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax), a [[Con Con]], and limited amnesty. On a personal level, Newt divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. For a period after 9/11, Newt adopted more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. With Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt. Endorsed by Rick Perry. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states. Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was an also-ran behind Gingrich and Romney in the South Carolina primary.
|-
|}

{{clear}}

<center><big>'''Candidates who have dropped out'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his electability. Suspended his campaign on January 19, two days prior to the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he originally announced that his candidacy would continue, but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|}

{{clear}}
<center><big>'''Candidates who never declared a candidacy (but possible Vice President picks)'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|The deadlines have passed for getting on the ballot in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. Also, in February Jeb polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Though Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no such challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls show Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-27T00:58:36Z

ScottDG:

'''''The next Republican presidential debate is on Thursday, January 26 in Jacksonville. The next primary election is on Tuesday, January 31, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
<center><big>'''Candidates who are still running'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, heavily favored by the Establishment, has business experience, was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Romney is a prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner who won the initial primaries in Iowa and New Hampahire. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Was defeated by a landslide in [[South Carolina]], despite being endorsed by foreign policy [[hawks]] [[John McCain]] and [[John Bolton]], and despite having finished a close second in the Iowa caucuses and first in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. Romney has been strong in most of the debates and in national polling but weak in almost every straw poll. The majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The only candidate who stands up to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including his [[pro-life]] positions and his passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax), a [[Con Con]], and limited amnesty. On a personal level, Newt divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. For a period after 9/11, Newt adopted more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. With Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt. Endorsed by Rick Perry. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states. Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was an also-ran behind Gingrich and Romney in the South Carolina primary.
|-
|}

{{clear}}

<center><big>'''Candidates who have dropped out'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his electability. Suspended his campaign on January 19, two days prior to the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he originally announced that his candidacy would continue, but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|}

{{clear}}
<center><big>'''Candidates who never declared a candidacy (but possible Vice President picks)'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|The deadlines have passed for getting on the ballot in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. Also, in February Jeb polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Though Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no such challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls show Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Essay: Gingrich Administration

2012-01-27T00:57:08Z

ScottDG: /* Republicans who will not appear in the Gingrich Administration */

The '''Gingrich Administration''' is the expected leadership of the [[Executive Branch]] of the [[United States]] government from 2013 to 2017, assuming that [[Newt Gingrich]] wins the [[Presidential Election 2012]].

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Position
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Actual Appointment
|-
|[[President]]
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|
|-
|[[Vice President]]
|[[Rick Perry]] <ref> Arguably the second strongest Republican candidate, it would be a very wise political decision for Gingrich to choose him as a Vice President to unite his party, like how Ronald Reagan appointed George W. Bush as his Vice President after he won the Republican nomination in 1980</ref>
|
|-
|[[Secretary of State]]
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Defense]]
|[[John McCain]]<ref>While McCain has endorsed Romney, he could stil be a good fit for this position. It woud have the further advantage of removing him from the Senate, where he could be replaced by someone with a more conservative record</ref>
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|
|-
|[[Attorney General]]
|Possibly [[John Yoo]]
|
|-
|[[White House Press Secretary]]
|a [[Fox News Channel]] analyst
|
|-
|Secretary of Veterans Affairs
|[http://independenceave.org/congress/member/nm/01 Heather Wilson]
|
|}
==Republicans who will not appear in the Gingrich Administration==
*[[Mitt Romney]] - despite the potential for being able to woo [[RINO]]s and others with whom Romney is popular, Romney's terribly negative campaign against Gingrich has effectively shut him out
*[[Chris Christie]] - a major supporter of Romney

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Essay: Gingrich Administration

2012-01-27T00:56:16Z

ScottDG:

The '''Gingrich Administration''' is the expected leadership of the [[Executive Branch]] of the [[United States]] government from 2013 to 2017, assuming that [[Newt Gingrich]] wins the [[Presidential Election 2012]].

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Position
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Actual Appointment
|-
|[[President]]
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|
|-
|[[Vice President]]
|[[Rick Perry]] <ref> Arguably the second strongest Republican candidate, it would be a very wise political decision for Gingrich to choose him as a Vice President to unite his party, like how Ronald Reagan appointed George W. Bush as his Vice President after he won the Republican nomination in 1980</ref>
|
|-
|[[Secretary of State]]
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Defense]]
|[[John McCain]]<ref>While McCain has endorsed Romney, he could stil be a good fit for this position. It woud have the further advantage of removing him from the Senate, where he could be replaced by someone with a more conservative record</ref>
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|
|-
|[[Attorney General]]
|Possibly [[John Yoo]]
|
|-
|[[White House Press Secretary]]
|a [[Fox News Channel]] analyst
|
|-
|Secretary of Veterans Affairs
|[http://independenceave.org/congress/member/nm/01 Heather Wilson]
|
|}
==Republicans who will not appear in the Gingrich Administration==
*Mitt Romney - despite the potential for being able to woo RINOs and others with whom Romney is popular, Romney's terribly negative campaign against Gingrich has effectively shut him out
*[[Christ Christie]] - a major supporter or Romney

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Tim Tebow

2012-01-26T19:20:48Z

ScottDG:

[[File:Tim Tebow.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Timothy Richard "Tim" Tebow''' (born August 14, 1987) is an [[American]] [[football]] player who first gained fame while playing for the [[University of Florida]] Gators. He was the first sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]] and led the Gators to two [[BCS]] Championships during his four years playing for UF in Gainesville.

He was selected by the [[Denver Broncos]] as the 25th pick of the first round of the 2010 NFL Draft. In 2011, with the team in last place, the Broncos decided to start Tebow as quarterback. Tebow had an impressive seven-game winning streak, and took the Broncos to the division championship and a home-game appearance in the playoffs. He led them to an upset win over the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] (headed by Hollywood-values quarterback [[Ben Roethlisberger]]) with 316 passing yards, confounding his critics. The Broncos were then eliminated from the playoffs when they lost against the [[New England Patriots]], 45-10, with Tebow completing only 9 of 26 pass attempts for a gain of 136 yards, 13 yards rushing, and 5 sacks.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2012/01/15/patriots_simply_unstoppable_against_broncos/ Patriots Pounce Broncos] Shaughnessy, Dan, bostonglobe.com, January 15, 2012, retrieved January 15, 2012</ref>

'''''Tebow is one of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservapedia's Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] and was a runner-up for [[Conservative of the Year 2011]]'''''.

==Personal life==
Tebow was [[homeschooled]] until college. He is an outspoken [[pro-lifer]], and his mother had been told to have an [[abortion]] rather than to give birth to him. Tebow appeared in a pro-life television ad that aired during the 2010 [[Super Bowl]], risking retaliation against his career by [[pro-aborts]] and the [[liberal media]].<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0127/Tim-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad-an-astonishingly-bold-stand</ref>

Tebow gives frequent interviews to the liberal media and often leaves them speechless. He answered a highly personal question at a press conference about his sex life by revealing that he practices [[abstinence]]:<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/090724&sportCat=ncf</ref>
{{cquote|I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question. ... I was ready for that question, but I don't think ya'll were.}}

Tebow volunteers on mission trips, one of which in the summer of 2008 to the [[Philippines]] was chronicled in an issue of the ''ESPN Magazine''.

His faith in [[Christ]] is a well-known fact inside and outside the sports world.

==Tebowing==
Tebowing is the act of kneeling on one knee, resting your head on your fist and giving thanks. It is named for Tebow's fashion of public prayer, although some Christian critics have denounced such open practice as this, citing Matthew 6, verses 5 and 6.
''<blockquote>
And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
</blockquote>''
However, Tebow's act can be considered simply an expression of faith and thanks, rather than a prayer. That Tebow bows to God on the field does not mean that he does not also pray to him in private.

== References ==

<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tebow, Tim}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category: Pro-life]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Tea Party Movement

2012-01-26T19:18:58Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by Smartpeople (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

The '''TEA Party Movement''' (TEA is a backronym for Taxed Enough Already) is an ongoing, nationwide mainstream movement of [[grassroots]] protesters, encompassing millions of individuals and thousands of self-organizing groups, all united in accomplishing a single goal: returning [[Conservative|fiscal responsibility]] and limited government to the [[United States]] through the exercise of political [[activist|activism]].<ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/15/morning-bell-the-tea-party-movement/ Morning Bell: The Tea Party Movement], heritage.org, April 15th, 2009.</ref> The main focus of the TEA Party Movement is a rebuke of outrageous mandates, overspending and a [[radical]] agenda by an out of touch federal government with values similar to [[King George III]] (see [[Boston Tea Party]]).<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/24073/ What the Tea Parties Are About], April 16, 2009.</ref> 

== Beginnings ==
The birth of the Tea Party Movement is often traced to February 2009; however, while [[Rick Santelli|Rick Santelli's]] famous impassioned speech on CNBC was perhaps the most visible spark that ignited Tea Party gatherings across the nation, the movement's genesis was in progress long before that notable day.<ref>Tea Party Arose From Conservatives Steeped in Crisis. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578332725182228.html Birth of a Movement], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 29, 2010.</ref> The movement was in gestation for years, in the hearts and minds of American citizens concerned about the path down which [[progressive]] policies have been taking the United States of America. The emergence of the Tea party Movement has been called [[Main Street]] America's indictment against the ruling class.<ref>Doug Mainwaring. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/13/tea-partys-inception-a-rebirth/ MAINWARING: Tea Party's inception a rebirth], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', August 13, 2010.</ref>

In the fall of 2007, supporters of [[Ron Paul]] staged a re-enactment of the [[Boston Tea Party]] as a fundraiser event, and to promote Paul's bid for the presidency.<ref>[http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?909-Who-Started-The-Modern-Day-Tea-Party-Movement-%28video%29&s=2b6ae18ef5615484bda67fa3c01678d6 Who Started The Modern Day Tea Party Movement? (video)], ronpaulforums.com, (Accessed August 19, 2011).</ref><ref>Warner Todd Huston. [http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2011/05/14/ap-tars-tea-party-movement-as-grandfathered-by-ron-paul/ AP Tars Tea Party Movement as ‘Grandfathered’ By Ron Paul], BigJournalism.com, May 14, 2011.</ref> With a silent but growing number of concerned citizens worried about the increasing government debt, impetus was given to the grassroots movement when radio talk-show host [[Rush Limbaugh]] criticized the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]] on January 27, 2009. Limbaugh accurately predicted the [[stimulus bill]] would make the [[recession]] worse, and said it is the wrong kind of government intervention.
{{Cquote|I don't believe it is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This 'porkulus' bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades."<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus], WSJ.com, January 29, 2009.</ref>}}

On February 9, 2009, a Cape Coral woman named Mary Rakovich led a small protest outside President Barack Obama's townhall meeting in Fort Myers, [[Florida]].<ref>[http://www.news-press.com/article/20090211/OBAMA/90210068 Those outside Harborside in Fort Myers had plenty to see, say], ''The News-Press'', February 11, 2009.</ref><ref>Dick Armey, Matt Kibbe. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html?KEYWORDS=tea+party+movement A Tea Party Manifesto], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', August 17, 2010.</ref> Then in late March of 2009, faced with the prospect of heavy fines from the city for not having the proper permitting or insurance, Mary Rakovich moved forward with future protests but with the backing of national organization ''FreedomWorks''. Rakovich said ''FreedomWorks'' offered to provide the insurance per the city's rules.<ref>[http://www.cape-coral-daily-breeze.com/page/content.detail/id/504707.html?nav=5011 Tea party finds new life, broadens cause], cape-coral-daily-breeze.com, March, 31, 2009.</ref>

The first anti-spending protest, organized by Liberty Belle, occurred in [[Seattle]], Washington on February 16, 2009.<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/04/dozen-ring-liberty-belles-sound-800.html A 'Dozen' Ring Liberty Belle's Sound, 800 Cities Ring-Back], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', accessed April 18, 2009.</ref><ref>Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds. [http://www.pjtv.com/video/Pajamas_TV/Tea_Party_Protests%3A_Mesa%2C_Seattle%2C_Denver_%28Michelle_Malkin_and_Glenn_Reynolds%29/1406/ Tea Party Protests: Mesa, Seattle, Denver], PJTV, February 16, 2009.</ref> Another protest was held the following day in [[Denver]] on February 17,<ref>[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/18732002/detail.html President Signs Massive Stimulus In Denver], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref> and a protest in Mesa, [[Arizona]] on February 18 brought 500 protesters.<ref>Gary Grado, Sonu Munshi, Hayley Ringle. [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135640/ More than 500 protest Obama's arrival], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref> The American people began organizing Tea Party protests en masse after Rick Santelli's famous speech on February 19, when he declared, "We're thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July! All you capitalists that want to show up at Lake Michigan, I'm going to start organizing."

=== Shout Heard 'Round the World ===
The Tea Party Movement gained support when on February 19, on live [[Television|TV]], [[CNBC]] reporter [[Rick Santelli]] argued about the [[bailout]]s and shouted, "The government is promoting bad behavior."<ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/02/rick-santelli-tea-party.html Transcript of Rick Santelli's speech], February 19, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701 Rick Santelli's Shout Heard 'Round the World], CNBC.com, February 19, 2009.</ref> Standing in the middle of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Santelli declared that America needed "a new kind of tea party," so that citizens can express their discontent with "the government's support of fiscal irresponsibility."<ref>Jennifer Rubin. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mr-president-turn-back-while-theres-still-time/ Mr. President: Turn Back While There’s Still Time], ''Pajamas Media'', February 20, 2009.</ref><ref>Matt Drudge. [http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Rick+Santelli+-+The+Rant+Heard+Round+the+World/4419854.html Rick Santelli - The Rant Heard 'Round the World'], streetinsider.com, February 19, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago>Andy Roesgen. [http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/TeaParty Protesters Gather for Self-Styled Tea Party], myfoxchicago.com, February 27, 2009.</ref>
{{Cquote|The government is promoting bad behavior! [...] How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (boos) President Obama, are you listening?! We're thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up at Lake Michigan, I'm going to start organizing. [...] I'll tell you what, if you read our Founding Fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now, is making them roll over in their graves.<ref>Rick Santelli, February 19, 2009.</ref>}}

With the help of ''DontGo'', ''Top Conservatives on Twitter'' (TCOT), ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'' (SGP), ''The American Spectator'', ''Americans for Tax Reform'', ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', and ''The Heartland Institute'', the Chicago Tea Parties were scheduled to happen nationwide on February 27, 2009.<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/23/the-chicago-tea-party-is-on/ The Chicago Tea Party is on!], February 23, 2009.</ref>

=== February 27th Tea Parties ===
Americans across the country gathered in 50 cities to protest the newly-passed Stimulus Bill of 2009.<ref>[http://www.tcotreport.com/Talking_Points.htm Talking Points and Theme for the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', February 24, 2009.</ref> Over 30,000 people made it to this event.<ref>Teri Christoph. [http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/video/video/show?id=2488056%3AVideo%3A24070& SGP.TeaParty], ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref> Many at the event were upset over the economic stimulus packages and [[bailout]]s for [[Wall Street]] pushed through by both [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] and [[Barack Obama|President Obama's]] administrations.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|- style="background:#ccc; text-align:center;"
! Location !! Sponsors<ref>[http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=page&page-id=68 Schedule of American Tea party Protests (with Sponsors)], February 27, 2009.</ref> !! Details
|-
| Atlanta, Georgia || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || A reported 300 to 400 protesters gathered outside the Georgia Capitol in protest of a $787 billion recovery bill.<ref name="georgia">[http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/02/27/budget-debate-launches-new-tea-party/ Budget debate launches new tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/71521/ Tea Party from Atlanta], pajamasmedia.com, February 17, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Chicago, Illinois]] || Don'tGo<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/19/chicago-tea-party/ Don'tGo Movement: Pledge to Have a Representation at Chicago Tea Party], February 19, 2009.</ref> || Approximately 300 people braved the 25 degree cold and wind in Chicago.<ref name="illinios">[http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/02/breaking-chicago-tea-party-pictures/ BREAKING - Chicago Tea Party (Pictures) UPDATED Now With Video!], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/27/the-birth-of-a-new-revolution/ The Birth of a New Revolution], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>
|-
| Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas || Americans for Prosperity,<ref>[http://www.redcounty.com/texas/2009/02/the-tea-parties-were-successfu/ The Tea Parties were successful - here's the proof], February 23, 2009.</ref> TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo, Dallas County Young Republicans || A "Texas-sized Tea Party" of 300 or more Texans met in Fort Worth, protesting big government and taxes.<ref name="fortworth">[http://txtcot.ning.com/video/tea-party-09-made-the-world Tea Party '09 made the world news], February 27, 2009.</ref> One sponsor, TCOT, collected over 800 signatures during the event.<ref>[http://txtcot.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tea-party-09 Tea Party '09], February 28, 2009.</ref>
|-
| Denver, Colorado || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || At the East Capitol Steps, 100 "[[Atlas Shrugged]]" fans braved cold temperatures for a "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" to protest the [[Obama Administration]]'s [[bailout]] plan.<ref name="dcolorado1">[http://coloradoindependent.com/23026/ayn-rand-stars-at-denver-stimulus-tea-party-protest Ayn Rand stars at Denver stimulus ‘tea party’ protest], ''Colorado Independent'', February 28, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcolorado2">[http://colorado.newsplatoon.com/2009/02/24/denver-tea-party/ Denver Tea Party], [[Colorado]], February 24, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Houston, Texas]] || TBD || Large groups, not entirely made up of Republicans, tried to create a modern day version of the Boston Tea Party.<ref>[http://houstontps.org/?page_id=163 Houston Tea Party Society, In the News, Audio, Video], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.khou.com/video/topstories-index.html?nvid=352345&shu=1 Houston's Tax Day tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Washington, D.C.]] || Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Conservatives Coalition, The Heartland Institute || The American Tea Party made some noise outside the White House.<ref name="dc_examiner">[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-American-Tea-Party-40442172.html DC Tea Party thrown at the White House], ''The Washington Examiner'', February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.freedomworks.org/petition/iamwithrick/index.html 2009 Taxpayer Tea party], February 28, 2009.</ref> Several hundred taxpayers showed up at the DC Tea Party protest in Lafayette Park,<ref name="michellemalkin">[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/27/scenes-from-the-tea-party/ Scenes from the D.C. Tea Party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcfreedomworks">[http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/video-from-the-dc-tea-party Video from the DC Tea Party], ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', February 28, 2009.</ref> including "Joe the Plumber."<ref name="hotair">[http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/27/joe-the-plumber-at-dc-tea-party-no-one-on-the-hill-gives-a-rip-about-you/ Joe the Plumber at D.C. Tea Party: No one on the Hill gives a rip about you], ''[[Hot Air]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref>
|}

== Scheduled Rallies ==
[[Image:Headnew.jpg|right|380px|right|Tax Day Tea Party poster]]
=== Tax Day Tea Party ===
: ''Main Article: [[Tax Day Tea Party]]''
Success from the Chicago Tea Party protests, as part of a concerted nationwide effort, led to the first of many scheduled Tea Party rallies. Following the February 27th Tea Parties, a group called ''Americans for Prosperity'' of [[North Carolina]] began implementing plans for a "Tax Day" Tea Party rally in Raleigh on the tax filing deadline.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref> Leading up to the Tax Day Tea Parties, the events were organized and promoted by volunteers, activists, and [[Political action committee]]s across the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-co-sponsoring-taxpayer-tea-parties-ac</ref> By taking advantage of online viral [[marketing]] to get the word out,<ref name="investorsnews">[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=470054&Ntt=tea+party 'Tea Party' Protests In 35 Cities], March 2, 2009.</ref> the speed and scope with which the Tax Day Tea Party protests were organized can be attributed to the use of [[Twitter]] [[TCOT Report|#TCOT]] feeds,<ref>[http://tcotreport.com/ TCOT Report], ''[[The TCOT Report]]''.</ref> on [[blog|blogs]],<ref>Marc Ambinder. [http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/tea_parties_pajamas_and_mediaevent_symbiotics.php Tea Parties, Pajamas, and Media/Event Symbiotics], ''The Atlantic'', February 25, 2009.</ref> and the social networking Website [[Facebook]].<ref name="facebook">[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/04/going-galt-and-the-next-tea-party-wave/ “Going Galt” and the next Tea Party wave], [[Michelle Malkin]], March 4, 2009.</ref>

==== 2009 ====
The Tea Party Movement held its first scheduled nationwide protest on April 15, 2009, a day that became known as the [[Tax Day Tea Party]].<ref name="WSJ">[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html Tax Day Becomes Protest Day], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', April 15, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/thousands-anti-tax-tea-party-protesters-turn-cities/ Thousands of Anti-Tax 'Tea Party' Protesters Turn Out in U.S. Cities], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> In the spirit of the [[Founding Fathers]] [[Boston Tea Party]], the rallies used themes from the [[American Revolution]] and also adopted the "American Tea Party Anthem," a song first performed during a March 21, 2009 Orlando, Florida Tea Party that drew over 4,000 people.<ref>Michelle Malkin. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/21/tea-party-usa-the-movement-grows/ Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows], February 21, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://newsblaze.com/story/20090323074552zzzz.nb/topstory.html "Tea Party" Song Becomes YouTube Hit]. ''Newsblaze'', March 23, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrea Shea King. [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/asking/2009/04/14/american-tea-party-anthem-singer-lloyd-marcus-this-whole-thing-is-rush-limbaughs-fault/ American Tea Party Anthem Singer Lloyd Marcus: "This whole thing is Rush Limbaugh’s fault."], ''Big Hollywood'', April 14, 2009.</ref> [[Dick Armey]] of [[FreedomWorks]] became one of Washington's principal supporters of the Tea Party movement.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516136,00.html Dick Armey to Speak at Atlanta Tea Party], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> [[Glenn Beck]], [[Rand Paul]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Sarah Palin]], and many others encouraged and even participated in aspects of the movement.

President Obama is seen to have responded to the tea parties with requested budget cuts of $100 million on April 20, 2009.<ref name="rushlimbaugh">[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042109/content/01125107.guest.html Obama Responded to Tea Parties with $100 Million in "Budget Cuts"], RushLimbaugh.com, April 21, 2009.</ref> Rush Limbaugh contended, "I'm sure they've got internal polling data that shows these tea parties are successful and these tea parties are a problem. So they're responding to the tea parties here. That's all this is." According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey on April 20, 2009, the poll found that fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans had a favorable view of the tea parties held nationwide, including 32% who said their view of the events were "Very favorable." Thirty-three percent (33%) held an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties. Fifteen percent (15%) were not sure.<ref name="rasmussenreports">[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees 51% View Tea Parties Favorably, Political Class Strongly Disagrees], ''Rasmussen Reports'', April 20, 2009.</ref>

==== 2010 ====
The Tea Party Patriots<ref>http://www.TeaPartyPatriots.org</ref> announced a milestone in the Tea Party movement: 2 million people attended the April 15 Tea Party events across the country in 2010, and 2,000 groups are now voluntarily affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots through its [[Web site]].<ref>PR Newswire. [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20100429.DC96062&show_article=1 Tea Party Numbers Released: 2 Million, 2 Thousand], ''Breitbart'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>Greta Van Susteren. [http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/tea-parties-on-tax-day/ Tea Parties on Tax Day], ''GretaWire'', April 16, 2010.</ref> Recent polls have shown that 48% of voters believe their views are reflected more closely in the values of the Tea Party movement than in the views of President Obama.

=== Independence Day ===
: ''Main Article: [[Independence Day Tea Party]]''

The same organizations decided to repeat their performance on [[Independence Day]] (July 4, 2009). Even more people attended; the largest such rally was held on the grounds of the Southfork Ranch (scene of the [[television]] series ''Dallas '), in [[Plano]], [[Texas]], which drew 37,000 attendees. The themes that organizers and participants sounded at these events were much the same as were those at the Tax Day events: advocacy of limited government, decrying of high levels of taxation, and refusal to countenance plans for [[socialism]] and especially socialized [[medicine]].

=== Labor Day ===
Several organizations also organized Tea Parties on [[Labor Day]], once again sounding the same limited-government, low-tax, and anti-socialistic themes. Those organizations that did not plan such events often referred people to those that did.

=== September 12 March on Washington ===
: ''Main Article: [[September 12 March on Washington]]''

[[File:Gadsden_snake.jpg|250px|right]]The largest TEA Party event thus far has been the September 12 March on [[Washington, DC]]. This was an event organized initially by the FreedomWorks Foundation, but nearly all Tea Party organizations decided to participate in this event, primarily by chartering buses and registering people for transportation to Washington. FreedomWorks estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons attended, and they base that estimate on the number of persons who responded when their Master of Ceremonies asked all attendees within earshot to send the text message "Freedom" to a designated five-digit telephone number. However, the [[London]] ''Daily Mail'' estimates attendance at as many as a million persons, on the basis of eyewitness accounts and aerial-photographic evidence.<ref name=dailymail>Gardner D, "[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html A million march to US Capitol to protest against 'Obama the socialist']," ''The London Daily Mail'', September 14, 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009.</ref> Estimates of total attendance are difficult to obtain, primarily because the size of the crowd far exceeded the estimates by the event planners, with the result that many attendees were never able to get within earshot of the stage or even the sound system, and the temporary sanitary facilities were hopelessly jammed, with fifty persons standing in line to use each portable "necessary."

=== Operation: Can You Hear us Now? ===
TEA party demonstrations have targeted local and national media outs across the country to oppose massive government spending. In a press release, the movement was led by FaxDC in about 100 cities across the U.S. on September 17th. <ref>[http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/10/tea-party-movement-denounces-media-corrupton/ Tea Party Movement Denounces Media Corruption], Lookingattheleft.com, October 19, 2009.</ref> [[Rush Limbaugh]] has previously spoke for the need for such media targeted TEA protests.

* NBC studios in Burbank
* CNN in Atlanta and
* Affiliate stations of NBC, ABC and CBS
* The New York Times
* Los Angeles Times
* Other prominent newspapers.
[[File:Canyouhearusnow.jpg|350px]]

===TEA Party Movie===
''TEA PARTY: The Documentary Film'' was released Thanksgiving Day 2009, is a documentary of five grassroots activists. The story line ''"from home town rally goers and rally organizers to national activists taking part in the 912 Taxpayer March on Washington."'' The theme is about principles, a call for a return to constitutionally limited government, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint at the Federal level. [http://www.teapartymovie.com/ TEA Party the Movie]

===Pink Slips Campaign===

''Main Article: [[Pink Slips campaign]]''

Organized in part by Joseph Farah from [[WorldNetDaily]], they had a goal of sending each and every member of Congress more than 5,000,000 pink slips.
 
Each pink slip reads '''YOU ARE BEING PUT ON NOTICE''' and

*government health care
*cap and trade
*"hate crimes"
*any more spending

''"If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election"''

As of November 2009, 8 million pink slips have been sent to Congress at a cost of $29 each <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117136 True grass-roots effort? The 'pink slips' campaign, WND.com, November 25, 2009]</ref>

== Noteworthy achievements ==
=== Elections ===
* The first Tea Party activist to win a special election for a state assembly seat was [[Dean Murray]] in Long Island.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586821,00.html Meet the First Tea Party Activist to Be Elected Into Office], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 19, 2010.</ref>
* The most stunning victory credited to the Tea Party Movement, specifically to the [[Tea Party Express]], was the surprise nomination of [[Sharron Angle]] over the establishment favorite [[Sue Lowden]] as the Republican candidate for the Senate seat of [[Nevada]].
* The Tea Party Movement is credited with helping to elect [[Senator]] [[Scott Brown]] in an upset for the seat formerly held by the late [[Ted Kennedy]].
* For the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]] listed the top 50 Tea Party candidates running for U.S. House of Representatives; 31 of 50 of these challengers won their elections.<ref>[http://www.electiondayteaparty.com/ Election Day Tea Party 2010], ElectionDayTeaParty.com, a project of the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]].</ref>
* [[Conservatives]] picked up a total of 63 seats in the [[House of Representatives]] for the 2010 Midterm Elections.

=== Education ===
* The Tea Party Movement has exposed the [[progressive]] agenda and its significant correlation with the failings of higher education in America.<ref>''Our universities haven't taught much political history for decades. No wonder so many progressives have disdain for the principles that animated the Federalist debates.'' [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704631504575531913602803980.html Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement], by Peter Berkowitz, ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 16, 2010.</ref> {{Cquote|Neither [[professors]] of [[political science]] nor of [[history]] have made a priority of instructing students in the [[Founding Fathers|founding principles]] of American [[Constitutional Republic|constitutional government]]. Nor have they taught about the contest between the [[Socialism|progressive vision]] and the [[Limited government|conservative vision]] that has characterized [[American Government Lecture Two|American politics]] since [[Woodrow Wilson]] helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] had become [[obsolete]] and hindered [[democratic]] reform. ... They do little to teach about [[Federal republic|self-government]]. They certainly do not teach about the [[virtue|virtues]], or [[quality|qualities]] of [[mind]] and [[character]], that enable citizens to shoulder their political responsibilities and prosper amidst the opportunities and uncertainties that [[freedom]] brings. Nor do they teach the beliefs, practices and associations that foster such virtues and those that endanger them. ... [America's] [[University|universities]] have produced two [[Generation|generations]] of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental [[American]] [[Principle|principles]], even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses.}}

== Themes ==
The Tea Party Movement is a protest of the [[generational theft]] of public tax monies, the tremendous extensions of United States Federal debt and authority, the apparent restructuring of the Federal government with the intent to contravene the system of checks and balances for which the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] provides, and the attempt, which some movement organizers say has been in progress for several decades, to sacrifice [[liberty]] for permanent dependency. The Tea Party Movement began with a protest against two aspects of current public policy:

# Excessive taxation
# Special privilege

[[Rick Santelli]] specifically cited the mortgage [[bailout]] policies of early 2009 as a prize example of the government doing special favors for certain classes of voters, in return for their continued support, and also of the "moral hazard" in which such policies inevitably place anyone who "buys on time," i.e., buys any sort of asset, from a home appliance to a parcel of [[real estate]], using borrowed money.

As the movement has progressed, it has begun to sound broader themes, which one may best summarize as:

# Self-responsibility
# Self-autonomy
# Limited government
# A requirement that government live within its own means, just as individuals must live within theirs
# Capitalism
# Freedom of all varieties of production and trade
# Respect for the [[United States Constitution]]

== Characteristics ==
=== Autonomy of local organizers ===
Most organization of Tea Parties and similar events is local. Typical of the movement is the Morristown Tea Party Organization ([[Morristown]], [[New Jersey]]), which has a five-member board of trustees and about fifty dedicated volunteers who handle operations, communication, and logistics without assistance or direction from any regional or other organization. State-wide coordinating bodies do exist (for example, New Jersey Tea Parties United), but local organizations are responsible for most of their activities, fund-raising, and legal functioning. In this regard, the Tea Party Movement is similar to the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America, which never seeks to dictate to individual churches how they must conduct their affairs.

=== Individual comportment and deportment ===
Event participants, and especially event planners, are urged to comport themselves in a manner respectful of the rights and feelings of others. Organizational leaders consciously endeavor to distinguish their movement from many [[liberal]] protest movements, which often characterize themselves by rude behavior, [[vandalism]], and even physical assaults against their opponents. Any person who persistently suggests that Tea Party Movement participants engage in activities remotely similar to this may usually consider themselves excluded, and in some cases organizers have summoned law-enforcement authorities to deal with provocative behavior by attendees at planning and other meetings.

=== Symbols ===
[[File:Gadsden_flag.png|200px|right]]By far the most prominent symbol at Tea Parties is the [[Gadsden Flag|Gadsden]] [[Rattlesnake (American symbol)|Rattlesnake Flag]].<ref>''Heraldric'': Or a rattlesnake sable and or coiled as to strike, facing sinister, on a bed of grass vert; motto "Don't Tread On Me"</ref><ref>[http://www.gadsden.info/Tea-Party.html Gadsden Flag at Tea Party Protests]</ref> The ''[[American historical flags|Come And Take It]]'' Flag has also appeared most notably at the September 12 March on Washington. Tea Party participants have almost always used home-made and home-decorated signs and other artifacts, in sharp contrast to the uniform, professionally printed signs carried at [[liberal]] demonstrations.

Most of the signs bear lampoons of the most highly publicized Obama Administration policies, from "Czars" to socialized medicine; moreover, Barack Obama is not the only target of criticism, the [[MSM]] has also been challenged in some rallies, both for their failings in covering the Tea Party Movement and also for what most participants regard as a collective decision by Mainstream Media organs to function as ''de facto'' government and/or [[Democratic Party]] as organs rather than the objective and disinterested commentators that they pretend to be.

Some of the signs that have been seen and photographed at these events have provoked cries of outrage from Tea Party Movement opponents, alleging bad taste, e.g. a picture of Barack Obama with the square mustache affected by [[Adolf Hitler]] and bearing the caption "I've Changed," and a sign bearing the message "Bury ObamaCare with [[Edward M. Kennedy|Kennedy]]." After the liberal Mainstream Media quickly blamed conservatives and even [[Rush Limbaugh]], some research was done to find the true source of the Hitler poster. It was later uncovered that the provocative Hitler signs were from a group of [[Leftist|far-left]] [[Lyndon LaRouche]] supporters, as they were infiltrating the Tea Party rallies as a means to spread their extreme visions.<ref>Seton Motley. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/12/nbc-cnn-msnbc-all-assign-communist-larouches-obama-hitler-poster-conse NBC, CNN and MSNBC All Assign Communist LaRouche's Obama-Hitler Poster to Conservatives, Limbaugh], ''NewsBusters'', August 12, 2009.</ref>

=== Demographic profile ===

A Quinnipiac Poll conducted in March 2010 found that thirteen percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group containing more women than men. 49% told pollsters they voted for [[Barack Obama]] in 2008, while only 44% voted for [[John McCain]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436 Quinnipiac Poll, Question 50e, March 2010.]</ref> Despite these findings, the [[White House]] has been linked to efforts to label the Tea Party as [[racist]].<ref>http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-administration-linked-to-fraudulent-racist-tea-party-video/</ref>

== News Coverage ==
[[File:MSMbyTEA.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Attitude of Tea Party Movement participants toward four MSM outlets]]

By far the most industrious news organization that has covered the Tea Party Movement is the [[Fox News Channel]], especially with commentators [[Neil Cavuto]], [[Glenn Beck]], [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Greta Van Susteren]]. Coverage of the Tea Party events by the [[Mainstream Media]] has lacked both quantity and quality. The three traditional broadcast networks ([[ABC]], [[CBS]], [[NBC]]) have attempted to falsely discredit these events as corporate-sponsored or sponsored by the [[Republican Party]] and other conservative or reactionary groups, and have generally censored the movement by refusing to cover major events.<ref name=baker>Baker B, "[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/04/16/abc-cbs-nbc-try-discredit-tea-party-protests ABC, CBS and NBC Try to Discredit 'Tea Party' Protests]," ''NewsBusters'', 16 April 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009. Baker does a side-by-side comparison of coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties and of several pro-immigration rallies held on 1 May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats] Supporters of the Tea Party Movement receive death threats from socialists and liberal extremists, but the [[MSM]] looks the other way and refuses mention the story.</ref>

===Uncivil Language===
Several news anchors working for [[CNN]] and [[MSNBC]] used uncivil language to describe Tea Partiers and coined the phrase "teabaggers," which is a crude term used to slur conservatives. Additionally, President Obama used the crude term as an off-color connotation attempting to mock Tea Party Movement organizers and participants across the nation. During an interview with the ''[[New York Times]]'', Barack Obama described the people of the Tea Party Movement as "the teabag, anti-government [extremists]."<ref>Michael Patrick Leahy. [http://www.tcotreport.com/obamaslur.html In Pep Talk to Democrats Yesterday, Obama Used Crude Term to Slur Conservatives], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', November 8, 2009.</ref> [[Vice President]] [[Joe Biden]] accused Tea Partiers of having "acted like terrorists" in a fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room with him, as reported by ''[[Politico]]''.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists], ''[[Politico]]'', August 01, 2011.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/01/biden-criticized-for-calling-tea-party-republicans-terrorists-over-their-debt/ Tea Party Group Calls on Biden to Apologize for 'Terrorists' Remark], FoxNews.com, August 02, 2011.</ref><ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081611/content/01125108.guest.html Ryan Rhodes Calls the Program], RushLimbaugh.com, August 16, 2011.</ref>

Confronted with an epidemic of joblessness in her home state of [[California]], liberal-[[socialist]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ&feature=related Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize U.S. oil industries], [[YouTube]], (Accessed August 22, 2011).</ref> [[House of Representatives|House]] representative [[Maxine Waters]] tried deflecting blame by telling a group of supporters that the "Tea Party can go straight to hell."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/22/rep-waters-tea-party-can-go-straight-to-hell/ Tea Party Group Slams Rep. Waters Over 'Straight to Hell' Outburst], FoxNews.com, August 22, 2011.</ref> She then threatened: "And I intend to help them get there."<ref>[http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2011/08/liberal-msm-omitted-maxine-waters-overt.html Liberal MSM Omitted Maxine Waters Overt Threat to Tea Party], ''Bluegrass Pundit'', August 22, 2011.</ref> At a [[Labor Day]] speech with Barack Obama in attendance, right before the president spoke, James P. Hoffa declared war against the Tea Party Movement. He offered to a cheering Obama, "President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these sons of bitches out."<ref>http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/09/06/teaparty/jimmy-hoffa-bring/</ref><ref>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090611/content/01125106.guest.html</ref> In a show of the same attitudes that several liberal leaders have expressed in graphic and ugly form, anonymous liberals created a Tea Party murder game, called "Tea Party Zombies Must Die."<ref>Tiffany Gabbay. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tea-party-zombies-must-die-new-online-lets-you-murder-beck-bachmann-palin/ ‘Tea Party Zombies Must Die’: New Online Game Lets You Gun Down Beck, Bachmann, Palin…], ''[[The Blaze]]'', September 6, 2011.</ref>

===Death Threats===
Tea Party organizers are not controlled or funded by the Republican Party or any established interest group. However, ''[[FreedomWorks]]'' and [[Dick Armey]] are well known supporters of the Tea Party Movement, and thus receive dozens of threatening and harassing calls and E-mails each day. ''FreedomWorks'' provided ''U.S. News & World Report'' with some of the recordings of the threatening calls, which include physical threats and profanity aimed at the group, Tea Party spokesmen and even [[conservative]] talkers. ''"You guys better watch it,"'' says one caller. ''"Now, we are going to destroy and obliterate [[Rush Limbaugh|Rush [Limbaugh]]] and [[Sean Hannity]],"'' said another. ''"Those two guys are dead."''<ref>Paul Bedard. [http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats], ''U.S. News & World Report'', August 25, 2010.</ref>

===Commentary===
[[Gordon Anderson]] wrote:
{{Cquote|Corruption and abuse of power seek to cloak themselves under the banner of security interests in order create elite ruling classes that are a threat to the security of those they are sworn to protect and the constitutions they are supposed to uphold. Citizens in both the United States and the European Union are witnessing the fruits of their lack of vigilance. This is a core underlying concern and reason for the rise of the “Tea Party” movement and its European counterparts. Such movements will continue arise as leaders of the so-called “free world” continue to violate the major principles of sound governance and hide corrupt actions under veils of secrecy.<ref>http://forum.newworldencyclopedia.org/index.php/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-balance-of-political-principles/</ref>}}

===Polls===
In late 2009, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed 41% of Americans had a positive view of the tea party movement and 24% had a negative view . By contrast, 35% of Americans had a positive view of the Democrats and 28% had a positive view of the Republican Party.<ref> see [http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/ "WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans," ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 16, 2009]</ref> This view appears to have changed recently, dropping to a low of 21% approval rating <ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-06/americans-have-more-negative-view-of-tea-party-u-s-poll-shows.html</ref> in August 2011.

{{Conservatism}}

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

==See Also==
* [[Tax Day Tea Party]]
* [[Independence Day Tea Party]]
* [[9/12 March on Washington D.C.]]
* [[Tea Party Organizations]]
* [[Contract From America]]
* [[Rattlesnake (American symbol)]]
* [[Boston Tea Party]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/ National Tea Party Unity Convention], TEA Party Nation (TPN).
* [http://www.onlinetaxrevolt.com/march/ The Online Tax Revolt March], Choose an Avatar and March Online to Washington.
* [http://taxdayteaparty.com/ Tax Day Tea Party]
* [http://www.reteaparty.com/ America's Re-Tea Party]
* [http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ Tea Party Patriots]

===Music Videos===
{{main|Tea Party Movement Videos}}

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2H8xHFXC8U&feature=player_embedded American Tea Party Anthem], by Lloyd Marcus
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT54cGEv7Nk I am America], by Krista Branch
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvuimX2bjI&list=QL Rise Up], music by Jeremy Hoop from ''[http://www.teapartymovie.com/film.html The Tea Party Movie]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfH46DTAkxo When You're Holding a Hammer (Everything Looks Like a Nail)], by Kyle Hill and Bryan Glover
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3CIPnQUOK0 Tip of the Spear], music by Phil Cuomo and Phil Valentine from the motion picture ''[http://philvalentine.com/AnInconsistentTruth.htm An Inconsistent Truth]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG38P92wQlc Don't tread on me], by the band ''[[Metallica]]'' ([http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Don%27t-Tread-On-Me-lyrics-Metallica/1F9C85C5B25CB6FF4825688D0034190D Lyrics])

[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]

Orphan

2012-01-25T23:30:55Z

ScottDG:

An '''orphan''' is a child who has lost both parents and has no one to look after them. Throughout the history of the [[United States]], [[church]]es have traditionally reached out to find care for orphans before the [[government]] had the resources to become actively involved.

[[Christian]]s point to many verse in the [[Bible]] that discuss taking care of orphans. One verse of prominence is James 1:27

<blockquote>"[[Religion]] that [[God]] our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."</blockquote>

Republican Presidential candidate [[Newt Gingrich]] is an orphan.

[[Category:Charity]]
[[Category:Family]]

Orphan

2012-01-25T23:30:41Z

ScottDG:

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-25T23:29:17Z

ScottDG:

'''''The next Republican debate is on 26. The next primary election is on Tuesday, January 31, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
<center><big>'''Candidates who are still running'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, heavily favored by the Establishment, has business experience, was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Romney is a prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner who won the initial primaries in Iowa and New Hampahire. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Was defeated by a landslide in [[South Carolina]], despite being endorsed by the [[hawks]] of [[John McCain]] and [[John Bolton]], and despite finishing a close second in the Iowa caucuses and first place in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. Romney remains strong in national polling. He's done well in most of the debates so far, yet Romney has done poorly in straw polls, and the majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The only candidate who stands up to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including his [[pro-life]] positions and his passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax), a [[Con Con]], and limited amnesty. On a personal level, Newt divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. For a period after 9/11, Newt adopted more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. With Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt. Endorsed by Rick Perry. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states. Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was an also-ran behind Gingrich and Romney in the South Carolina primary.
|-
|}

{{clear}}

<center><big>'''Candidates who have dropped out'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his electability. Suspended his campaign on January 19, two days prior to the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he originally announced that his candidacy would continue, but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|}

{{clear}}
<center><big>'''Candidates who never declared a candidacy (but possible Vice President picks)'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|The deadlines have passed for getting on the ballot in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. Also, in February Jeb polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Though Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

User:ScottDG

2012-01-25T23:17:41Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by ScottDG (talk) to last revision by Joaquín Martínez

User:ScottDG

2012-01-25T23:17:19Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by Joaquín Martínez (talk) to last revision by Tilejoin

Chris Christie

2012-01-24T15:39:32Z

ScottDG:

{{Officeholder
|name=Chris Christie
|image=Chris-christie3.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Mary Pat Christie
|religion=Roman Catholic
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=New Jersey
|terms=January 19, 2010 - Present
|preceded=[[Jon Corzine]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Christopher Christie''' (born September 6, 1962 in Newark, New Jersey) is the 55th and current Governor of [[New Jersey]], having won in the 2009 election by a 49%-45% margin over incumbent [[Democrat]] [[Jon Corzine]]. A [[Republican]], previously Christie served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Having declined to run for president in 2012, Christie is a leading contender to be picked for Vice President. He could attract [[Catholic]] voters nationwide, as well as Irish and Italian American voters, which could help carry [[Pennsylvania]]. However, doubts remain among some conservative voters concerning his commitment to fighting the rise of [[Sharia law]] and the Islamization of America.<ref>See comments posted at http://conservativebyte.com/2011/08/chris-christie-blasts-crazies-after-appointing-muslim-judge-the-sharia-law-business-is-just-crap/</ref>

Christie is a [[PLINO]].

==Biography==

Prior to his election as governor, Christie's only elected experience was serving on the Morris County board of Freeholders from 1995-1998. His colleagues praised him as effective, such as requiring as policy that the freeholder board go out for three quotations even on no-bid contracts. They also noted that he was unusually ambitious, when he unsuccessfully ran for State Assembly just two months into his term. <ref>http://www.politickernj.com/max/26275/political-career-three-parts-chris-christie-freeholder</ref> During his tenure in office county taxes decreased by 6.6%. <ref>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/gop_candidate_chris_christie_l.html</ref>

After serving as a top fundraiser for [[George W. Bush]]'s 2000 presidential campaign, the [[Bush administration]] appointed Christie as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and served from 2002-2008. He was also one of the 17 U.S. Attorneys on [[Attorney General]] [[Alberto Gonzales]]'s advisory commitee. Christie's most high profile prosecutions included State Senator and [[Newark]] Mayor Sharpe James for mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiring to rig the sale of nine city lots to his mistress. <ref>[http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/newark_ex_mayor_sharpe_james_convicted.html] Mayor James convicted</ref> He also led the felony conviction of State Senator Wayne Brant of mail and wire fraud, and bribery for soliciting a job at the School of Osteopathic Medicine. <ref>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/11/exlawmaker_bryant_guilty_of_br.html</ref> As attorney, Christie won convictions or guilty pleas from over 130 public officials, without losing a single case.

Christie's service as a prosecutor had an influence in [[national security]], when he led the team that prosecuted Hemant Lakhani, who had the desire to broker the sale of shoulder-fired missiles to shoot down American passenger jets. <ref>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-6229181-details/%27Del+Boy%27+trader+on+arms+charge/article.do;jsessionid=2F40D75F1AFD0FA79E8E876DCB944F88</ref> When leaving office in December 2008 he was praised by every major newspaper in New Jersey. The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized "Christie has already done more good for New Jersey than some previous governors." The [[New York Times]] wrote that Christie "won widespread admiration for his aggressive fight against political corruption." <ref>http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=14677&ShowAllPoll=Y</ref>

Even Governor Corzine, Christie's opponent in the gubernatorial election praised Christie in 2005, saying "I have supported Chris Christie as being our U.S. attorney, fought for his ability to be that, endorsed what he's doing...There have been as many Republicans as Democrats who have been brought to justice because of Chris Christie. I think he's doing a great job." <ref>http://www.christiefornj.com/images/negativeattacks.pdf</ref>

==2009 Gubernatorial Campaign==
[[Image:Christiemap.jpg|thumb|right|350px|2009 Election Results]]
In the Republican primary, Christie defeated former mayor [[Steve Lonegan]].

Although a Democratic state, Christie was elected while advocating the need to downsize state [[government]] and reduce property taxes. New Jersey had faced a weakened economy, high budget deficit and a high tax burden, reslting in Corzine's defeat.

In July, Christie endorsed [[President Obama]]'s nomination of [[Sonia Sotomayor]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], saying "Elections have consequences. One of those consequences are judicial appointments. While Judge Sotomayor would not have been my choice, President Obama has used his opportunity to fill a seat on the Supreme Court by choosing a nominee who has more than proven her capability, competence and ability." <ref>http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/07/gop_gov_candidate_chris_christ_3.html</ref>

Christopher Christie is pro-life:
:"I believe in the sanctity, dignity and inherent value of all human life. Hearing the heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago had a profound effect on me. I am pro-life because I believe her life and the life of every child is precious." <ref>http://www.christiefornj.com/questions-for-chris</ref>

===Notable Endorsements===
*Former [[New York City]] [[Mayor]] [[Rudy Giuliani]]
*Former [[Massachusetts]] Governor [[Mitt Romney]]
*Former New Jersey Governor [[Thomas Kean, Sr.]]
*Economist [[Steve Forbes]]
*New Jersey Right to Life Committee <ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state4512.html</ref>

==Record as Governor==

On Christie's first day as governor he signed eight executive orders and froze several government regulations. He gave a nod to Casinos, signing an order saying that their employees are essential state workers and will not have to close in any future state government shutdown, as they were in 2006. Christie also added unions to the list of groups who cannot receive state contracts of more than $17,500 if they have donated more than $300 to a campaign for governor or county political committee in the previous 18 months.<ref>http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/new_jersey/article_63a14ff8-8038-591a-8f1a-7503e1bbcbcc.html</ref>

In February, Christie announced that he would immediately freeze all state spending. Saying New Jersey is on the verge of bankruptcy, Christie declared a fiscal emergency, announcing drastic cuts. <ref>http://wcbstv.com/local/governor.christie.freezes.2.1487727.html</ref>

On March 16, 2011, Christie announced major cuts to education to help balance the budget bloat caused by years under Democratic governors. <ref>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/03/22/25559/</ref> The New Jersey Education Association hotly contested these vital cuts, as they would almost certainly require the firing of non-tenured teachers to balance local school budgets, a problem the teacher's union created in the first place. Recently, the cuts have been challenged by the Supreme court, despite there being no link between New Jersey's relatively large amount of educational spending and increased statewide academic success. <ref>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/christies_school_aid_cuts_left.html</ref>

In August 2011, Christie raised controversy by dismissing legitimate concerns voters and members of the New Jersey state legislature had raised concerning his appointment of Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim attorney with a history of defending Muslims after [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11]], as a judge on the state bench. Christie used profanity in referring to concerns that Mohammed would institute [[Sharia law]] from his position as state judge, and called citizens concerned about the Islamization of America "crazies."<ref>http://nation.foxnews.com/chris-christie/2011/08/04/christie-defends-appointing-muslim-judge-sharia-law-business-crap</ref>

Governor Christie has endorsed a plan to to merge part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) with Rutgers University. The plan would include UMDNJ’s New Brunswick-Piscataway campus — Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, the School of Public Health and the Cancer Institute of New Jersey. The change would help raise Rutgers’ profile and draw more research dollars to the state, according to the recommendations. <ref>[http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/umdnj-rutgers_partial_merger_r.html Gov. Christie strongly endorses partial merger of Rutgers and UMDNJ]</ref> Rutgers, one of the few state universities without its own medical school, has been lobbying for a merger since another state task force headed by former New Jersey Gov. [[Thomas Kean]] first suggested the idea in January 2011. The reorganization has an “aggressive” target date of July 1, 2012. By adding a medical school, Rutgers’ rank among universities in spending on research and development would rise dramatically<ref>[http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/no_time_wasted_creating_rutger.html No time is being wasted creating Rutgers medical school]</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.state.nj.us/governor/ Governor of New Jersey Official Site]

===Videos===
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICIa-KJeUtM&feature=related Governor Christie: Style]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evtt-R7Rmdw&feature=related Governor Christie: Day of Reckoning]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVccFQLFmUo&feature=related Conservative Governor on his "confrontational tone"]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlzA9dgZ1qM&feature=related Rush Limbaugh: Governor Chris Christie Slaughters a Liberal Reporter]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeXBlZdPENU&feature=related Governor Chris Christie For President 2012]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIVr0dVgww&feature=related Christie Slams Teacher Unions]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuri7p_9pm4&feature=related Chris Christie vs. Teachers Unions]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ksLlAi3iIc&feature=related Governor Christie: Not About Teachers]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkv6uo5nZDM&feature=related Governor Christie on Hannity]

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Christie, Christopher}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[category:New Jersey Governors]]
[[category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and North America

2012-01-24T15:05:06Z

ScottDG: /* United States of America */ Not a Unesco World Heritage Site

[[File:Sacre_Coeur.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Sacre Coeur]], [[France]]]]

According to the [[World Heritage Site|World Heritage Lists]] of the [[UNESCO]]:

==[[Albania]]==

*[[Butrint]]
*Historic Centres of [[Berat]] and [[Gjirokastra]]

==[[Andorra]]==

*[[Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley]]

==[[Armenia]]==

*Cathedral and Churches of [[Echmiatsin]] and the Archaeological Site of [[Zvartnots]]
*Monasteries of [[Haghpat]] and [[Sanahin]]
*Monastery of [[Geghard]] and the Upper [[Azat Valley]]

==[[Austria]]==

*City of [[Graz]] – Historic Centre and Schloss Eggenberg
*[[Fertö]] / [[Neusiedlersee]] Cultural Landscape
*Hallstatt-Dachstein / Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape
*Historic Centre of the City of [[Salzburg]]
*Historic Centre of [[Vienna]]
*Palace and Gardens of [[Schönbrunn]]
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Semmering Railway
*[[Wachau]] Cultural Landscape

==[[Azerbaijan]]==

*[[Gobustan]] Rock Art Cultural Landscape
*Walled City of [[Baku]] with the [[Shirvanshah's Palace]] and Maiden Tower

==[[Belarus]]==

*Architectural, Residential and Cultural Complex of the [[Radziwill]] Family at [[Nesvizh]]
*[[Belovezhskaya Pushcha]] / [[Bialowieza]] Forest
*[[Mir Castle]] Complex
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Belgium]]==

*[[Belfrie]]s of Belgium and France
*Flemish Béguinages
*Historic Centre of [[Brugge]]
*La [[Grand-Place]], [[Brussels]]
*Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta ([[Brussels]])
*Neolithic Flint Mines at [[Spiennes]] ([[Mons]])
*[[Notre-Dame Cathedral]] in [[Tournai]]
*[[Plantin-Moretus]] House-Workshops-Museum Complex
*[[Stoclet House]]
*The Four Lifts on the [[Canal du Centre]] and their Environs, [[La Louvière]] and [[Le Roeulx]] (Hainault)

==[[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]==

*[[Mehmed Paša Sokolovic Bridge]] in [[Višegrad]]
*Old Bridge Area of the Old City of [[Mostar]]

==[[Bulgaria]]==

*Ancient City of [[Nessebar]]
*[[Boyana]] Church
*[[Madara Rider]]
*[[Pirin National Park]]
*[[Rila]] Monastery
*Rock-Hewn Churches of [[Ivanovo]]
*[[Srebarna]] Nature Reserve
*Thracian Tomb of [[Kazanlak]]
*Thracian Tomb of [[Sveshtari]]

==[[Canada]]==
[[File:Quebec City.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Quebec]], [[Canada]]]]

*Canadian [[Rocky Mountain]] Parks
*[[Dinosaur Provincial Park]]
*[[Gros Morne National Park]]
*Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
*Historic District of Old [[Québec]]
*[[Joggins]] Fossil Cliffs
*[[Kluane]] / [[Wrangell-St Elias]] / [[Glacier Bay]] / [[Tatshenshini-Alsek]]
*[[L’Anse aux Meadows]] National Historic Site
*[[Miguasha National Park]]
*[[Nahanni National Park]]
*Old Town [[Lunenburg]]
*[[Rideau Canal]]
*[[SGang Gwaay]]
*[[Waterton Glacier]] International Peace Park
*[[Wood Buffalo National Park]]

==[[Croatia]]==

*Episcopal Complex of the [[Euphrasian Basilica]] in the Historic Centre of [[Porec]]
*Historic City of [[Trogir]]
*Historical Complex of [[Split]] with the [[Palace of Diocletian]]
*Old City of [[Dubrovnik]]
*[[Plitvice Lakes National Park]]
*[[Stari]] Grad Plain
*The Cathedral of [[St James]] in [[Šibenik]]

==[[Cyprus]]==

*[[Choirokoitia]]
*Painted Churches in the [[Troodos]] Region
*[[Paphos]]

==[[Czech Republic]]==
[[File:Prague.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Prague]], [[Czech Republic]]]]

*Gardens and Castle at [[Kromeríž]]
*Historic Centre of [[Ceský Krumlov]]
*Historic Centre of [[Prague]]
*Historic Centre of [[Telc]]
*[[Holašovice]] Historical Village Reservation
*Holy Trinity Column in [[Olomouc]]
*[[Jewish]] Quarter and St Procopius' Basilica in [[Trebíc]]
*[[Kutná Hora]]: Historical Town Centre with the Church of [[St Barbara]] and the [[Cathedral of Our Lady]] at [[Sedlec]]
*[[Lednice-Valtice]] Cultural Landscape
*[[Litomyšl]] Castle
*Pilgrimage Church of [[St John of Nepomuk]] at [[Zelená Hora]]
*[[Tugendhat]] Villa in [[Brno]]

==[[Denmark]]==

*[[Ilulissat]] [[Icefjord]]
*[[Jelling Mounds]], Runic Stones and Church
*[[Kronborg]] Castle
*[[Roskilde Cathedral]]

==[[Estonia]]==

*Historic Centre (Old Town) of [[Tallinn]]
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Finland]]==

*Bronze Age Burial Site of [[Sammallahdenmäki]]
*Fortress of [[Suomenlinna]]
*High Coast / [[Kvarken]] Archipelago
*Old [[Rauma]]
*[[Petäjävesi]] Old Church
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Verla]] Groundwood and Board Mill

==[[France]]==
[[File:Palace_of_Versailles.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Versailles]], [[France]]]]

*Abbey Church of[[ Saint-Savin sur Gartempe]]
*[[Amiens]] Cathedral
*[[Arles]], Roman and Romanesque Monuments
*[[Belfries]] of Belgium and France
*[[Bordeaux]], Port of the Moon
*[[Bourges]] Cathedral
*[[Canal du Midi]]
*Cathedral of [[Notre-Dame]], Former Abbey of Saint-Rémi and Palace of Tau, [[Reims]]
*[[Chartres Cathedral]]
*Cistercian Abbey of [[Fontenay]]
*Episcopal City of [[Albi]]
*Fortifications of [[Vauban]]
*From the Great Saltworks of [[Salins-les-Bains]] to the Royal Saltworks of [[Arc-et-Senans]], the Production of Open-pan Salt
*[[Gulf of Porto]]: Calanche of Piana, Gulf of Girolata, Scandola Reserve
*Historic Centre of [[Avignon]]: Papal Palace, Episcopal Ensemble and Avignon Bridge
*Historic Fortified City of [[Carcassonne]]
*Historic Site of [[Lyons]]
*Jurisdiction of [[Saint-Emilion]]
*[[Lagoon]]s of [[New Caledonia]]: Reef Diversity and Associated Ecosystems
*[[Le Havre]], the City Rebuilt by [[Auguste Perret]]
*[[Mont-Saint-Michel]] and its Bay
*Palace and Park of [[Fontainebleau]]
*Palace and Park of [[Versailles]]
*[[Paris]], Banks of the [[Seine]]
*[[Pitons]], cirques and remparts of [[Reunion]] Island
*[[Place Stanislas]], Place de la Carrière and Place d'Alliance in [[Nancy]]
*[[Pont du Gard]] (Roman Aqueduct)
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the [[Vézère]] Valley
*[[Provins]], Town of Medieval Fairs
*[[Pyrénées]] - [[Mont Perdu]]
*Roman Theatre and its Surroundings and the "Triumphal Arch" of [[Orange]]
*Routes of [[Santiago de Compostela]] in France
*[[Strasbourg]] – Grande île
*The Causses and the Cévennes, [[Mediterranean]] agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape
*The [[Loire]] Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes
*[[Vézelay]], Church and Hill

==[[Georgia]]==

*[[Bagrati Cathedral]] and [[Gelati]] Monastery
*Historical Monuments of [[Mtskheta]]
*Upper [[Svaneti]]

==[[Germany]]==
[[File:Bruhl_Palace.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Bruhl Palace]], [[Germany]]]]

*[[Aachen]] Cathedral
*Abbey and Altenmünster of [[Lorsch]]
*[[Bauhaus]] and its Sites in [[Weimar]] and [[Dessau]]
*[[Berlin]] Modernism Housing Estates
*Castles of [[Augustusburg]] and [[Falkenlust]] at [[Brühl]]
*Classical [[Weimar]]
*Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of [[Quedlinburg]]
*[[Cologne Cathedral]]
*[[Fagus]] Factory in [[Alfeld]]
*[[Frontier]]s of the [[Roman Empire]]
*Garden Kingdom of [[Dessau-Wörlitz]]
*Hanseatic City of [[Lübeck]]
*Historic Centres of [[Stralsund]] and [[Wismar]]
*Luther Memorials in [[Eisleben]] and [[Wittenberg]]
*[[Maulbronn]] Monastery Complex
*[[Messel Pit]] Fossil Site
*Mines of [[Rammelsberg]], Historic Town of [[Goslar]] and Upper Harz Water Management System
*Monastic Island of [[Reichenau]]
*[[Museumsinsel]] (Museum Island), [[Berlin]]
*[[Muskauer Park]] / [[Park Muzakowski]]
*Old town of [[Regensburg]] with [[Stadtamhof]]
*Palaces and Parks of [[Potsdam]] and [[Berlin]]
*Pilgrimage Church of [[Wies]]
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany
*Roman Monuments, [[Cathedral of St Peter]] and [[Church of Our Lady]] in [[Trier]]
*[[Speyer Cathedral]]
*[[St Mary's Cathedral]] and [[St Michael's Church]] at [[Hildesheim]]
*The [[Wadden Sea]]
*Town Hall and Roland on the Marketplace of [[Bremen]]
*Town of [[Bamberg]]
*Upper Middle [[Rhine]] Valley
*[[Völklingen]] Ironworks
*[[Wartburg]] Castle
*[[Würzburg]] Residence with the Court Gardens and Residence Squar
*[[Zollverein]] Coal Mine Industrial Complex in [[Essen]]

==[[Greece]]==
[[File:Corfu_Greece.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Corfu]], [[Greece]]]]
*[[Acropolis]], [[Athens]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Aigai]] (modern name [[Vergina]])
*Archaeological Site of [[Delphi]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Mystras]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Olympia]]
*Archaeological Sites of [[Mycenae]] and [[Tiryns]]
*[[Delos]]
*Historic Centre ([[Chorá]]) with the Monastery of Saint John
*Medieval City of [[Rhodes]]
*[[Meteora]]
*Monasteries of [[Daphni]], Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni of Chios
*[[Mount Athos]]
*Old Town of [[Corfu]]
*Paleochristian and [[Byzantine]] Monuments of [[Thessalonika]]
*[[Pythagoreion]] and [[Heraion]] of [[Samos]]
*Sanctuary of [[Asklepios]] at [[Epidaurus]]
*[[Temple of Apollo]] [[Epicurius]] at [[Bassae]]

==[[Holy See]]==

*Historic Centre of [[Rome]], the Properties of the Holy See in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura
*[[Vatican City]]

==[[Hungary]]==

*[[Budapest]], including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue
*Caves of [[Aggtelek Karst]] and [[Slovak Karst]]
*Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs ([[Sopianae]])
*[[Fertö]] / [[Neusiedlersee]] Cultural Landscape
*[[Hortobágy National Park]] - the Puszta
*Millenary Benedictine [[Abbey of Pannonhalma]] and its Natural Environment
*Old Village of [[Hollóko]] and its Surroundings
*[[Tokaj]] Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape

==[[Iceland]]==

*[[Surtsey]]
*[[Þingvellir National Park]]

==[[Ireland]]==

*Archaeological Ensemble of the [[Bend]] of the [[Boyne]]
*[[Skellig Michael]]

==[[Israel]]==

*[[Bahá’i]] Holy Places in [[Haifa]] and the Western Galilee
*Biblical Tels - [[Megiddo]], [[Hazor]], [[Beer Sheba]]
*[[Incense]] Route - Desert Cities in the [[Negev]]
*[[Masada]]
*Old City of [[Acre]]
*White City of [[Tel-Aviv]] -- the Modern Movement

==[[Italy]]==
[[File:Colosseum.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Colosseum]], [[Italy]]]]
*18th-Century Royal Palace at [[Caserta]] with the Park, the Aqueduct of Vanvitelli, and the San Leucio Complex
*[[Sacri Monti]] of [[Piedmont]] and [[Lombardy]]
*Archaeological Area and the Patriarchal [[Basilica of Aquileia]]
*Archaeological Area of [[Agrigento]]
*Archaeological Areas of [[Pompei]], [[Herculaneum]] and [[Torre Annunziata]]
*Assisi, the [[Basilica of San Francesco]] and Other Franciscan Sites
*Botanical Garden (Orto Botanico), [[Padua]]
*[[Castel del Monte]]
*Cathedral, [[Torre Civica]] and [[Piazza Grande]], [[Modena]]
*Church and [[Dominican Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie]]
*[[Cilento]] and [[Vallo di Diano National Park]] with the Archeological sites of Paestum and Velia, and the Certosa di Padula
*City of [[Verona]]
*City of [[Vicenza]] and the Palladian Villas of the [[Veneto]]
*[[Costiera Amalfitana]]
*[[Crespi d'Adda]]
*Early Christian Monuments of [[Ravenna]]
*Etruscan Necropolises of [[Cerveteri]] and [[Tarquinia]]
*[[Ferrara]], City of the Renaissance, and its Po Delta
*[[Genoa]]: Le Strade Nuove and the system of the Palazzi dei Rolli
*Historic Centre of [[Florence]]
*Historic Centre of [[Naples]]
*Historic Centre of [[Rome]], the Properties of the [[Holy See]] in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura 9
*Historic Centre of [[San Gimignano]]
*Historic Centre of [[Siena]]
*Historic Centre of the City of [[Pienza]]
*Historic Centre of [[Urbino]]
*Isole Eolie ([[Aeolian Islands]])
*Late Baroque Towns of the [[Val di Noto]] (South-Eastern [[Sicily]])
*Longobards in Italy. Places of the power (568-774 A.D.)
*[[Mantua]] and [[Sabbioneta]]
*[[Monte San Giorgio]]
*[[Piazza del Duomo]], [[Pisa]]
*[[Portovenere]], [[Cinque Terre]], and the Islands (Palmaria, Tino and Tinetto)
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Residences of the Royal House of [[Savoy]]
*Rhaetian Railway in the [[Albula]] / [[Bernina]] Landscapes
*Rock Drawings in [[Valcamonica]]
*[[Su Nuraxi di Barumini]]
*[[Syracuse]] and the Rocky Necropolis of [[Pantalica]]
*The Trulli of Alberobello
*The Dolomites
*The Sassi and the Park of the Rupestrian Churches of Matera
*Val d'Orcia
*Venice and its Lagoon
*Villa Adriana (Tivoli)
*Villa d'Este, Tivoli
*Villa [[Romana del Casale]]

==[[Latvia]]==

*Historic Centre of [[Riga]]
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Lithuania]]==

*Curonian Spit
*[[Kernave]] Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of Kernave)
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Vilnius]] Historic Centre

==[[Luxembourg]]==

*City of [[Luxembourg]]: its Old Quarters and Fortifications

==[[Malta]]==

*City of [[Valletta]]
*[[Hal Saflieni Hypogeum]]
*Megalithic Temples of Malta

==[[Moldova]]==

*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Montenegro]]==

*[[Durmitor National Park]]
*Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of [[Kotor]]

==[[Netherlands]]==

*Defence Line of [[Amsterdam]]
*[[Droogmakerij de Beemster]] (Beemster Polder)
*Historic Area of [[Willemstad]], Inner City and Harbour, [[Curaçao]]
*Ir.D.F. [[Woudagemaal]] (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station)
*Mill Network at [[Kinderdijk-Elshout]]
*[[Rietveld Schröderhuis]] ([[Rietveld Schröder]] House)
*[[Schokland]] and Surroundings
*Seventeenth-century [[canal]] ring area of Amsterdam inside the [[Singelgracht]]
*The [[Wadden Sea]]

==[[Norway]]==

*[[Bryggen]]
*Rock Art of [[Alta]]
*[[Røros]] Mining Town and the Circumference
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Urnes Stave]] Church
*[[Vegaøyan]] -- The [[Vega]] Archipelago
*West Norwegian [[Fjord]]s – [[Geirangerfjord]] and [[Nærøyfjord]]

==[[Poland]]==

*[[Auschwitz]] Birkenau
*German [[Nazi]] Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)
*[[Belovezhskaya Pushcha]] / [[Bialowieza]] Forest
*Castle of the [[Teutonic Order]] in [[Malbork]]
*[[Centennial Hall]] in [[Wroclaw]]
*Churches of Peace in [[Jawor]] and [[Swidnica]]
*[[Cracow]]'s Historic Centre
*Historic Centre of [[Warsaw]]
*[[Kalwaria Zebrzydowska]]: the Mannerist Architectural and Park Landscape Complex and Pilgrimage Park
*Medieval Town of [[Torun]]
*Muskauer Park / Park [[Muzakowski]]
*Old City of [[Zamosc]]
*[[Wieliczka]] Salt Mine
*Wooden Churches of Southern Little Poland

==[[Portugal]]==
[[File:The_Tower_of_Belem.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Tower of Belem]], [[Portugal]]]]
*[[Alto Douro]] Wine Region
*Central Zone of the Town of [[Angra do Heroismo]] in the [[Azores]]
*Convent of Christ in [[Tomar]]
*Cultural Landscape of [[Sintra]]
*Historic Centre of [[Évora]]
*Historic Centre of [[Guimarães]]
*Historic Centre of [[Oporto]]
*Landscape of the [[Pico Island]] Vineyard Culture
*[[Laurisilva of Madeira]]
*Monastery of [[Alcobaça]]
*Monastery of [[Batalha]]
*[[Monastery of the Hieronymites]] and [[Tower of Belém]] in [[Lisbon]]
*Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the [[Côa Valley]] and [[Siega Verde]]

==[[Romania]]==

*Churches of [[Moldavia]]
*Dacian Fortresses of the [[Orastie Mountains]]
*[[Danube]] Delta
*Historic Centre of [[Sighisoara]]
*Monastery of [[Horezu]]
*Villages with Fortified Churches in [[Transylvania]]
*Wooden Churches of [[Maramures]]

==[[Russian Federation]]==
[[File:St._Basil%27s_Basilica.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[St._Basil's Basilica]], [[Russia]]]]

*Architectural Ensemble of the Trinity Sergius Lavra in [[Sergiev Posad]]
*Central [[Sikhote-Alin]]
*[[Church of the Ascension]], [[Kolomenskoye]]
*Citadel, Ancient City and Fortress Buildings of [[Derbent]]
*Cultural and Historic Ensemble of the [[Solovetsky Islands]]
*Curonian Spit
*Ensemble of the [[Ferrapontov]] Monastery
*Ensemble of the [[Novodevichy]] Convent
*Golden Mountains of [[Altai]]
*Historic and Architectural Complex of the [[Kazan Kremlin]]
*Historic Centre of [[Saint Petersburg]] and Related Groups of Monuments
*Historic Monuments of [[Novgorod]] and Surroundings
*Historical Centre of the City of [[Yaroslavl]]
*[[Kizhi Pogost]]
*[[Kremlin]] and [[Red Square]], [[Moscow]]
*[[Lake Baikal]]
*Natural System of [[Wrangel Island]] Reserve
*[[Putorana]] Plateau
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Uvs Nuur]] Basin
*Virgin [[Komi]] Forests
*Volcanoes of [[Kamchatka]]
*Western [[Caucasus]]
*White Monuments of [[Vladimir]] and [[Suzdal]]

==[[San Marino]]==

*San Marino Historic Centre and [[Mount Titano]]

==[[Serbia]]==

*[[Gamzigrad-Romuliana]], Palace of [[Galerius]]
*Medieval Monuments in [[Kosovo]]
*[[Stari Ras]] and [[Sopocani]]
*[[Studenica]] Monastery

==[[Slovakia]]==

*[[Bardejov]] Town Conservation Reserve
*Caves of [[Aggtelek Karst]] and [[Slovak Karst]]
*Historic Town of [[Banská Štiavnica]] and the Technical Monuments in its Vicinity
*[[Levoca]], [[Spišský Hrad]] and the Associated Cultural Monuments
*Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of [[Germany]]
*[[Vlkolínec]]
*Wooden Churches of the Slovak part of the [[Carpathian Mountain]] Area

==[[Slovenia]]==

*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*[[Škocjan]] Caves

==[[Spain]]==
[[File:Alhambra_Patio_de_los_Arrayanes.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Alhambra]], [[Spain]]]]
*[[Alhambra]], [[Generalife]] and [[Albayzín]], [[Granada]]
*[[Aranjuez]] Cultural Landscape
*Archaeological Ensemble of [[Mérida]]
*Archaeological Ensemble of [[Tárraco]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Atapuerca]]
*[[Burgos Cathedral]]
*Catalan Romanesque Churches of the [[Vall de Boí]]
*Cathedral, Alcázar and Archivo de Indias in [[Seville]]
*Cave of [[Altamira]] and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain
*Cultural Landscape of the [[Serra de Tramuntana]]
*[[Doñana National Park]]
*[[Garajonay National Park]]
*Historic Centre of [[Cordoba]]
*Historic City of [[Toledo]]
*Historic Walled Town of [[Cuenca]]
*[[Ibiza]], Biodiversity and Culture
*[[La Lonja de la Seda]] de [[Valencia]]
*[[Las Médulas]]
*Monastery and Site of the [[Escurial]], [[Madrid]]
*Monuments of [[Oviedo]] and the Kingdom of the [[Asturias]]
*Mudejar Architecture of [[Aragon]]
*Old City of [[Salamanca]]
*Old Town of [[Ávila]] with its Extra-Muros Churches
*Old Town of [[Cáceres]]
*Old Town of [[Segovia]] and its Aqueduct
*Palau de la Música Catalana and Hospital de Sant Pau, [[Barcelona]]
*Palmeral of [[Elche]]
*[[Poblet]] Monastery
*Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the [[Côa]] Valley and [[Siega Verde]]
*[[Pyrénées]] - [[Mont Perdu]]
*Renaissance Monumental Ensembles of [[Úbeda]] and [[Baeza]]
*Rock Art of the Mediterranean Basin on the Iberian Peninsula
*Roman Walls of [[Lugo]]
*Route of [[Santiago de Compostela]]
*Royal Monastery of [[Santa María de Guadalupe]]
*[[San Cristóbal de La Laguna]]
*[[San Millán Yuso]] and [[Suso]] Monasteries
*[[Santiago de Compostela]] (Old Town)
*[[Teide National Park]]
*[[Tower of Hercules]]
*University and Historic Precinct of [[Alcalá de Henares]]
*[[Vizcaya]] Bridge
*Works of [[Antoni Gaudí]]

==[[Sweden]]==

*Agricultural Landscape of Southern [[Öland]]
*[[Birka]] and [[Hovgården]]
*Church Village of Gammelstad, [[Luleå]]
*[[Engelsberg]] Ironworks
*Hanseatic Town of [[Visby]]
*High Coast / [[Kvarken]] Archipelago
*[[Laponia]]n Area
*Mining Area of the Great Copper Mountain in [[Falun]]
*Naval Port of [[Karlskrona]]
*Rock Carvings in [[Tanum]]
*Royal Domain of [[Drottningholm]]
*[[Skogskyrkogården]]
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Varberg]] Radio Station

==[[Switzerland]]==

*Benedictine Convent of St John at [[Müstair]]
*Convent of [[St Gall]]
*[[La Chaux-de-Fonds]] / Le Locle, Watchmaking Town Planning
*[[Lavaux]], Vineyard Terraces
*[[Monte San Giorgio]]
*Old City of [[Berne]]
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Rhaetian Railway in the [[Albula]] / Bernina Landscapes
*Swiss [[Alps]] [[Jungfrau-Aletsch]]
*Swiss Tectonic Arena [[Sardona]]
*Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of [[Bellinzona]]

==[[Turkey]]==

*Archaeological Site of [[Troy]]
*City of [[Safranbolu]]
*[[Göreme National Park]] and the Rock Sites of [[Cappadocia]]
*Great Mosque and Hospital of [[Divrigi]]
*[[Hattusha]]: the [[Hittite]] Capital
*[[Hierapolis]]-[[Pamukkale]]
*Historic Areas of [[Istanbul]]
*[[Nemrut Dag]]
*[[Selimiye]] Mosque and its Social Complex
*[[Xanthos]]-[[Letoon]]

==[[Ukraine]]==

*[[Kiev]]: [[Saint-Sophia]] Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra
*[[L'viv]] – the Ensemble of the Historic Centre
*Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany
*Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmatian Metropolitans
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[United Kingdom]] of Great Britain and Northern Ireland==
[[File:Tower_bridge_London.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Tower Bridge]], [[United Kingdom]]]]
*[[Blaenavon]] Industrial Landscape
*[[Blenheim Palace]]
*[[Canterbury Cathedral]], [[St Augustine's Abbey]], and [[St Martin's Church]]
*Castles and [[Town Walls]] of [[King Edward]] in [[Gwynedd]]
*City of [[Bath]]
*[[Cornwall]] and West [[Devon]] Mining Landscape
*[[Derwent]] Valley Mills
*[[Dorset]] and East Devon Coast
*[[Durham]] Castle and Cathedral
*[[Frontier]]s of the [[Roman Empire]]
*[[Giant's Causeway]] and Causeway Coast
*[[Gough]] and Inaccessible Islands
*Heart of Neolithic [[Orkney]]
*[[Henderson Island]]
*Historic Town of [[St George]] and Related Fortifications, [[Bermuda]]
*[[Ironbridge Gorge]]
*[[Liverpool]] – Maritime Mercantile City
*Maritime [[Greenwich]]
*[[New Lanark]]
*Old and New Towns of [[Edinburgh]]
*[[Pontcysyllte]] Aqueduct and Canal
*[[Royal Botanic Gardens]], [[Kew]]
*[[Saltaire]]
*[[St Kilda]]
*[[Stonehenge]], Avebury and Associated Sites
*Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of [[Fountains Abbey]]
*[[Tower of London]]
*[[Westminster Palace]], [[Westminster Abbey]] and [[Saint Margaret's Church]]

==[[United States of America]]==
[[File:Grand_Canyon2.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Grand Canyon]], [[United States]]]]
*[[Cahokia Mounds]] State Historic Site
*[[Carlsbad Caverns National Park]]
*[[Chaco]] Culture
*[[Everglades National Park]]
*[[Grand Canyon National Park]]
*[[Great Smoky Mountains National Park]]
*[[Hawaii Volcanoes National Park]]
*[[Independence Hall]]
*[[Kluane]] / [[Wrangell-St Elias]] / [[Glacier Bay]] / [[Tatshenshini-Alsek]]
*[[La Fortaleza]] and [[San Juan National]] Historic Site in [[Puerto Rico]]
*[[Mammoth Cave National Park]]
*[[Mesa Verde National Park]]
*[[Monticello]] and the [[University of Virginia]] in [[Charlottesville]]
*[[Olympic National Park]]
*[[Papahanaumokuakea]]
*[[Pueblo de Taos]]
*[[Redwood National Park|Redwood National and State Parks]]
*[[Statue of Liberty]]
*[[Waterton Glacier International Peace Park]]
*[[Yellowstone National Park]]
*[[Yosemite National Park]]

== See also ==
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Africa]]
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Arab States]]
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and the Pacific]]
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Latin America and the Caribbean]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Europe]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:American History]]

List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and North America

2012-01-24T15:02:24Z

ScottDG: Undo revision 956329 by Conservative (talk) Not a World Heritage Site

[[File:Sacre_Coeur.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Sacre Coeur]], [[France]]]]

According to the [[World Heritage Site|World Heritage Lists]] of the [[UNESCO]]:

==[[Albania]]==

*[[Butrint]]
*Historic Centres of [[Berat]] and [[Gjirokastra]]

==[[Andorra]]==

*[[Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley]]

==[[Armenia]]==

*Cathedral and Churches of [[Echmiatsin]] and the Archaeological Site of [[Zvartnots]]
*Monasteries of [[Haghpat]] and [[Sanahin]]
*Monastery of [[Geghard]] and the Upper [[Azat Valley]]

==[[Austria]]==

*City of [[Graz]] – Historic Centre and Schloss Eggenberg
*[[Fertö]] / [[Neusiedlersee]] Cultural Landscape
*Hallstatt-Dachstein / Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape
*Historic Centre of the City of [[Salzburg]]
*Historic Centre of [[Vienna]]
*Palace and Gardens of [[Schönbrunn]]
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Semmering Railway
*[[Wachau]] Cultural Landscape

==[[Azerbaijan]]==

*[[Gobustan]] Rock Art Cultural Landscape
*Walled City of [[Baku]] with the [[Shirvanshah's Palace]] and Maiden Tower

==[[Belarus]]==

*Architectural, Residential and Cultural Complex of the [[Radziwill]] Family at [[Nesvizh]]
*[[Belovezhskaya Pushcha]] / [[Bialowieza]] Forest
*[[Mir Castle]] Complex
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Belgium]]==

*[[Belfrie]]s of Belgium and France
*Flemish Béguinages
*Historic Centre of [[Brugge]]
*La [[Grand-Place]], [[Brussels]]
*Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta ([[Brussels]])
*Neolithic Flint Mines at [[Spiennes]] ([[Mons]])
*[[Notre-Dame Cathedral]] in [[Tournai]]
*[[Plantin-Moretus]] House-Workshops-Museum Complex
*[[Stoclet House]]
*The Four Lifts on the [[Canal du Centre]] and their Environs, [[La Louvière]] and [[Le Roeulx]] (Hainault)

==[[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]==

*[[Mehmed Paša Sokolovic Bridge]] in [[Višegrad]]
*Old Bridge Area of the Old City of [[Mostar]]

==[[Bulgaria]]==

*Ancient City of [[Nessebar]]
*[[Boyana]] Church
*[[Madara Rider]]
*[[Pirin National Park]]
*[[Rila]] Monastery
*Rock-Hewn Churches of [[Ivanovo]]
*[[Srebarna]] Nature Reserve
*Thracian Tomb of [[Kazanlak]]
*Thracian Tomb of [[Sveshtari]]

==[[Canada]]==
[[File:Quebec City.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Quebec]], [[Canada]]]]

*Canadian [[Rocky Mountain]] Parks
*[[Dinosaur Provincial Park]]
*[[Gros Morne National Park]]
*Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
*Historic District of Old [[Québec]]
*[[Joggins]] Fossil Cliffs
*[[Kluane]] / [[Wrangell-St Elias]] / [[Glacier Bay]] / [[Tatshenshini-Alsek]]
*[[L’Anse aux Meadows]] National Historic Site
*[[Miguasha National Park]]
*[[Nahanni National Park]]
*Old Town [[Lunenburg]]
*[[Rideau Canal]]
*[[SGang Gwaay]]
*[[Waterton Glacier]] International Peace Park
*[[Wood Buffalo National Park]]

==[[Croatia]]==

*Episcopal Complex of the [[Euphrasian Basilica]] in the Historic Centre of [[Porec]]
*Historic City of [[Trogir]]
*Historical Complex of [[Split]] with the [[Palace of Diocletian]]
*Old City of [[Dubrovnik]]
*[[Plitvice Lakes National Park]]
*[[Stari]] Grad Plain
*The Cathedral of [[St James]] in [[Šibenik]]

==[[Cyprus]]==

*[[Choirokoitia]]
*Painted Churches in the [[Troodos]] Region
*[[Paphos]]

==[[Czech Republic]]==
[[File:Prague.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Prague]], [[Czech Republic]]]]

*Gardens and Castle at [[Kromeríž]]
*Historic Centre of [[Ceský Krumlov]]
*Historic Centre of [[Prague]]
*Historic Centre of [[Telc]]
*[[Holašovice]] Historical Village Reservation
*Holy Trinity Column in [[Olomouc]]
*[[Jewish]] Quarter and St Procopius' Basilica in [[Trebíc]]
*[[Kutná Hora]]: Historical Town Centre with the Church of [[St Barbara]] and the [[Cathedral of Our Lady]] at [[Sedlec]]
*[[Lednice-Valtice]] Cultural Landscape
*[[Litomyšl]] Castle
*Pilgrimage Church of [[St John of Nepomuk]] at [[Zelená Hora]]
*[[Tugendhat]] Villa in [[Brno]]

==[[Denmark]]==

*[[Ilulissat]] [[Icefjord]]
*[[Jelling Mounds]], Runic Stones and Church
*[[Kronborg]] Castle
*[[Roskilde Cathedral]]

==[[Estonia]]==

*Historic Centre (Old Town) of [[Tallinn]]
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Finland]]==

*Bronze Age Burial Site of [[Sammallahdenmäki]]
*Fortress of [[Suomenlinna]]
*High Coast / [[Kvarken]] Archipelago
*Old [[Rauma]]
*[[Petäjävesi]] Old Church
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Verla]] Groundwood and Board Mill

==[[France]]==
[[File:Palace_of_Versailles.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Versailles]], [[France]]]]

*Abbey Church of[[ Saint-Savin sur Gartempe]]
*[[Amiens]] Cathedral
*[[Arles]], Roman and Romanesque Monuments
*[[Belfries]] of Belgium and France
*[[Bordeaux]], Port of the Moon
*[[Bourges]] Cathedral
*[[Canal du Midi]]
*Cathedral of [[Notre-Dame]], Former Abbey of Saint-Rémi and Palace of Tau, [[Reims]]
*[[Chartres Cathedral]]
*Cistercian Abbey of [[Fontenay]]
*Episcopal City of [[Albi]]
*Fortifications of [[Vauban]]
*From the Great Saltworks of [[Salins-les-Bains]] to the Royal Saltworks of [[Arc-et-Senans]], the Production of Open-pan Salt
*[[Gulf of Porto]]: Calanche of Piana, Gulf of Girolata, Scandola Reserve
*Historic Centre of [[Avignon]]: Papal Palace, Episcopal Ensemble and Avignon Bridge
*Historic Fortified City of [[Carcassonne]]
*Historic Site of [[Lyons]]
*Jurisdiction of [[Saint-Emilion]]
*[[Lagoon]]s of [[New Caledonia]]: Reef Diversity and Associated Ecosystems
*[[Le Havre]], the City Rebuilt by [[Auguste Perret]]
*[[Mont-Saint-Michel]] and its Bay
*Palace and Park of [[Fontainebleau]]
*Palace and Park of [[Versailles]]
*[[Paris]], Banks of the [[Seine]]
*[[Pitons]], cirques and remparts of [[Reunion]] Island
*[[Place Stanislas]], Place de la Carrière and Place d'Alliance in [[Nancy]]
*[[Pont du Gard]] (Roman Aqueduct)
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the [[Vézère]] Valley
*[[Provins]], Town of Medieval Fairs
*[[Pyrénées]] - [[Mont Perdu]]
*Roman Theatre and its Surroundings and the "Triumphal Arch" of [[Orange]]
*Routes of [[Santiago de Compostela]] in France
*[[Strasbourg]] – Grande île
*The Causses and the Cévennes, [[Mediterranean]] agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape
*The [[Loire]] Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes
*[[Vézelay]], Church and Hill

==[[Georgia]]==

*[[Bagrati Cathedral]] and [[Gelati]] Monastery
*Historical Monuments of [[Mtskheta]]
*Upper [[Svaneti]]

==[[Germany]]==
[[File:Bruhl_Palace.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Bruhl Palace]], [[Germany]]]]

*[[Aachen]] Cathedral
*Abbey and Altenmünster of [[Lorsch]]
*[[Bauhaus]] and its Sites in [[Weimar]] and [[Dessau]]
*[[Berlin]] Modernism Housing Estates
*Castles of [[Augustusburg]] and [[Falkenlust]] at [[Brühl]]
*Classical [[Weimar]]
*Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of [[Quedlinburg]]
*[[Cologne Cathedral]]
*[[Fagus]] Factory in [[Alfeld]]
*[[Frontier]]s of the [[Roman Empire]]
*Garden Kingdom of [[Dessau-Wörlitz]]
*Hanseatic City of [[Lübeck]]
*Historic Centres of [[Stralsund]] and [[Wismar]]
*Luther Memorials in [[Eisleben]] and [[Wittenberg]]
*[[Maulbronn]] Monastery Complex
*[[Messel Pit]] Fossil Site
*Mines of [[Rammelsberg]], Historic Town of [[Goslar]] and Upper Harz Water Management System
*Monastic Island of [[Reichenau]]
*[[Museumsinsel]] (Museum Island), [[Berlin]]
*[[Muskauer Park]] / [[Park Muzakowski]]
*Old town of [[Regensburg]] with [[Stadtamhof]]
*Palaces and Parks of [[Potsdam]] and [[Berlin]]
*Pilgrimage Church of [[Wies]]
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany
*Roman Monuments, [[Cathedral of St Peter]] and [[Church of Our Lady]] in [[Trier]]
*[[Speyer Cathedral]]
*[[St Mary's Cathedral]] and [[St Michael's Church]] at [[Hildesheim]]
*The [[Wadden Sea]]
*Town Hall and Roland on the Marketplace of [[Bremen]]
*Town of [[Bamberg]]
*Upper Middle [[Rhine]] Valley
*[[Völklingen]] Ironworks
*[[Wartburg]] Castle
*[[Würzburg]] Residence with the Court Gardens and Residence Squar
*[[Zollverein]] Coal Mine Industrial Complex in [[Essen]]

==[[Greece]]==
[[File:Corfu_Greece.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Corfu]], [[Greece]]]]
*[[Acropolis]], [[Athens]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Aigai]] (modern name [[Vergina]])
*Archaeological Site of [[Delphi]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Mystras]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Olympia]]
*Archaeological Sites of [[Mycenae]] and [[Tiryns]]
*[[Delos]]
*Historic Centre ([[Chorá]]) with the Monastery of Saint John
*Medieval City of [[Rhodes]]
*[[Meteora]]
*Monasteries of [[Daphni]], Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni of Chios
*[[Mount Athos]]
*Old Town of [[Corfu]]
*Paleochristian and [[Byzantine]] Monuments of [[Thessalonika]]
*[[Pythagoreion]] and [[Heraion]] of [[Samos]]
*Sanctuary of [[Asklepios]] at [[Epidaurus]]
*[[Temple of Apollo]] [[Epicurius]] at [[Bassae]]

==[[Holy See]]==

*Historic Centre of [[Rome]], the Properties of the Holy See in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura
*[[Vatican City]]

==[[Hungary]]==

*[[Budapest]], including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue
*Caves of [[Aggtelek Karst]] and [[Slovak Karst]]
*Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs ([[Sopianae]])
*[[Fertö]] / [[Neusiedlersee]] Cultural Landscape
*[[Hortobágy National Park]] - the Puszta
*Millenary Benedictine [[Abbey of Pannonhalma]] and its Natural Environment
*Old Village of [[Hollóko]] and its Surroundings
*[[Tokaj]] Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape

==[[Iceland]]==

*[[Surtsey]]
*[[Þingvellir National Park]]

==[[Ireland]]==

*Archaeological Ensemble of the [[Bend]] of the [[Boyne]]
*[[Skellig Michael]]

==[[Israel]]==

*[[Bahá’i]] Holy Places in [[Haifa]] and the Western Galilee
*Biblical Tels - [[Megiddo]], [[Hazor]], [[Beer Sheba]]
*[[Incense]] Route - Desert Cities in the [[Negev]]
*[[Masada]]
*Old City of [[Acre]]
*White City of [[Tel-Aviv]] -- the Modern Movement

==[[Italy]]==
[[File:Colosseum.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Colosseum]], [[Italy]]]]
*18th-Century Royal Palace at [[Caserta]] with the Park, the Aqueduct of Vanvitelli, and the San Leucio Complex
*[[Sacri Monti]] of [[Piedmont]] and [[Lombardy]]
*Archaeological Area and the Patriarchal [[Basilica of Aquileia]]
*Archaeological Area of [[Agrigento]]
*Archaeological Areas of [[Pompei]], [[Herculaneum]] and [[Torre Annunziata]]
*Assisi, the [[Basilica of San Francesco]] and Other Franciscan Sites
*Botanical Garden (Orto Botanico), [[Padua]]
*[[Castel del Monte]]
*Cathedral, [[Torre Civica]] and [[Piazza Grande]], [[Modena]]
*Church and [[Dominican Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie]]
*[[Cilento]] and [[Vallo di Diano National Park]] with the Archeological sites of Paestum and Velia, and the Certosa di Padula
*City of [[Verona]]
*City of [[Vicenza]] and the Palladian Villas of the [[Veneto]]
*[[Costiera Amalfitana]]
*[[Crespi d'Adda]]
*Early Christian Monuments of [[Ravenna]]
*Etruscan Necropolises of [[Cerveteri]] and [[Tarquinia]]
*[[Ferrara]], City of the Renaissance, and its Po Delta
*[[Genoa]]: Le Strade Nuove and the system of the Palazzi dei Rolli
*Historic Centre of [[Florence]]
*Historic Centre of [[Naples]]
*Historic Centre of [[Rome]], the Properties of the [[Holy See]] in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura 9
*Historic Centre of [[San Gimignano]]
*Historic Centre of [[Siena]]
*Historic Centre of the City of [[Pienza]]
*Historic Centre of [[Urbino]]
*Isole Eolie ([[Aeolian Islands]])
*Late Baroque Towns of the [[Val di Noto]] (South-Eastern [[Sicily]])
*Longobards in Italy. Places of the power (568-774 A.D.)
*[[Mantua]] and [[Sabbioneta]]
*[[Monte San Giorgio]]
*[[Piazza del Duomo]], [[Pisa]]
*[[Portovenere]], [[Cinque Terre]], and the Islands (Palmaria, Tino and Tinetto)
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Residences of the Royal House of [[Savoy]]
*Rhaetian Railway in the [[Albula]] / [[Bernina]] Landscapes
*Rock Drawings in [[Valcamonica]]
*[[Su Nuraxi di Barumini]]
*[[Syracuse]] and the Rocky Necropolis of [[Pantalica]]
*The Trulli of Alberobello
*The Dolomites
*The Sassi and the Park of the Rupestrian Churches of Matera
*Val d'Orcia
*Venice and its Lagoon
*Villa Adriana (Tivoli)
*Villa d'Este, Tivoli
*Villa [[Romana del Casale]]

==[[Latvia]]==

*Historic Centre of [[Riga]]
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Lithuania]]==

*Curonian Spit
*[[Kernave]] Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of Kernave)
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Vilnius]] Historic Centre

==[[Luxembourg]]==

*City of [[Luxembourg]]: its Old Quarters and Fortifications

==[[Malta]]==

*City of [[Valletta]]
*[[Hal Saflieni Hypogeum]]
*Megalithic Temples of Malta

==[[Moldova]]==

*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[Montenegro]]==

*[[Durmitor National Park]]
*Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of [[Kotor]]

==[[Netherlands]]==

*Defence Line of [[Amsterdam]]
*[[Droogmakerij de Beemster]] (Beemster Polder)
*Historic Area of [[Willemstad]], Inner City and Harbour, [[Curaçao]]
*Ir.D.F. [[Woudagemaal]] (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station)
*Mill Network at [[Kinderdijk-Elshout]]
*[[Rietveld Schröderhuis]] ([[Rietveld Schröder]] House)
*[[Schokland]] and Surroundings
*Seventeenth-century [[canal]] ring area of Amsterdam inside the [[Singelgracht]]
*The [[Wadden Sea]]

==[[Norway]]==

*[[Bryggen]]
*Rock Art of [[Alta]]
*[[Røros]] Mining Town and the Circumference
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Urnes Stave]] Church
*[[Vegaøyan]] -- The [[Vega]] Archipelago
*West Norwegian [[Fjord]]s – [[Geirangerfjord]] and [[Nærøyfjord]]

==[[Poland]]==

*[[Auschwitz]] Birkenau
*German [[Nazi]] Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)
*[[Belovezhskaya Pushcha]] / [[Bialowieza]] Forest
*Castle of the [[Teutonic Order]] in [[Malbork]]
*[[Centennial Hall]] in [[Wroclaw]]
*Churches of Peace in [[Jawor]] and [[Swidnica]]
*[[Cracow]]'s Historic Centre
*Historic Centre of [[Warsaw]]
*[[Kalwaria Zebrzydowska]]: the Mannerist Architectural and Park Landscape Complex and Pilgrimage Park
*Medieval Town of [[Torun]]
*Muskauer Park / Park [[Muzakowski]]
*Old City of [[Zamosc]]
*[[Wieliczka]] Salt Mine
*Wooden Churches of Southern Little Poland

==[[Portugal]]==
[[File:The_Tower_of_Belem.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Tower of Belem]], [[Portugal]]]]
*[[Alto Douro]] Wine Region
*Central Zone of the Town of [[Angra do Heroismo]] in the [[Azores]]
*Convent of Christ in [[Tomar]]
*Cultural Landscape of [[Sintra]]
*Historic Centre of [[Évora]]
*Historic Centre of [[Guimarães]]
*Historic Centre of [[Oporto]]
*Landscape of the [[Pico Island]] Vineyard Culture
*[[Laurisilva of Madeira]]
*Monastery of [[Alcobaça]]
*Monastery of [[Batalha]]
*[[Monastery of the Hieronymites]] and [[Tower of Belém]] in [[Lisbon]]
*Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the [[Côa Valley]] and [[Siega Verde]]

==[[Romania]]==

*Churches of [[Moldavia]]
*Dacian Fortresses of the [[Orastie Mountains]]
*[[Danube]] Delta
*Historic Centre of [[Sighisoara]]
*Monastery of [[Horezu]]
*Villages with Fortified Churches in [[Transylvania]]
*Wooden Churches of [[Maramures]]

==[[Russian Federation]]==
[[File:St._Basil%27s_Basilica.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[St._Basil's Basilica]], [[Russia]]]]

*Architectural Ensemble of the Trinity Sergius Lavra in [[Sergiev Posad]]
*Central [[Sikhote-Alin]]
*[[Church of the Ascension]], [[Kolomenskoye]]
*Citadel, Ancient City and Fortress Buildings of [[Derbent]]
*Cultural and Historic Ensemble of the [[Solovetsky Islands]]
*Curonian Spit
*Ensemble of the [[Ferrapontov]] Monastery
*Ensemble of the [[Novodevichy]] Convent
*Golden Mountains of [[Altai]]
*Historic and Architectural Complex of the [[Kazan Kremlin]]
*Historic Centre of [[Saint Petersburg]] and Related Groups of Monuments
*Historic Monuments of [[Novgorod]] and Surroundings
*Historical Centre of the City of [[Yaroslavl]]
*[[Kizhi Pogost]]
*[[Kremlin]] and [[Red Square]], [[Moscow]]
*[[Lake Baikal]]
*Natural System of [[Wrangel Island]] Reserve
*[[Putorana]] Plateau
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Uvs Nuur]] Basin
*Virgin [[Komi]] Forests
*Volcanoes of [[Kamchatka]]
*Western [[Caucasus]]
*White Monuments of [[Vladimir]] and [[Suzdal]]

==[[San Marino]]==

*San Marino Historic Centre and [[Mount Titano]]

==[[Serbia]]==

*[[Gamzigrad-Romuliana]], Palace of [[Galerius]]
*Medieval Monuments in [[Kosovo]]
*[[Stari Ras]] and [[Sopocani]]
*[[Studenica]] Monastery

==[[Slovakia]]==

*[[Bardejov]] Town Conservation Reserve
*Caves of [[Aggtelek Karst]] and [[Slovak Karst]]
*Historic Town of [[Banská Štiavnica]] and the Technical Monuments in its Vicinity
*[[Levoca]], [[Spišský Hrad]] and the Associated Cultural Monuments
*Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of [[Germany]]
*[[Vlkolínec]]
*Wooden Churches of the Slovak part of the [[Carpathian Mountain]] Area

==[[Slovenia]]==

*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*[[Škocjan]] Caves

==[[Spain]]==
[[File:Alhambra_Patio_de_los_Arrayanes.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Alhambra]], [[Spain]]]]
*[[Alhambra]], [[Generalife]] and [[Albayzín]], [[Granada]]
*[[Aranjuez]] Cultural Landscape
*Archaeological Ensemble of [[Mérida]]
*Archaeological Ensemble of [[Tárraco]]
*Archaeological Site of [[Atapuerca]]
*[[Burgos Cathedral]]
*Catalan Romanesque Churches of the [[Vall de Boí]]
*Cathedral, Alcázar and Archivo de Indias in [[Seville]]
*Cave of [[Altamira]] and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain
*Cultural Landscape of the [[Serra de Tramuntana]]
*[[Doñana National Park]]
*[[Garajonay National Park]]
*Historic Centre of [[Cordoba]]
*Historic City of [[Toledo]]
*Historic Walled Town of [[Cuenca]]
*[[Ibiza]], Biodiversity and Culture
*[[La Lonja de la Seda]] de [[Valencia]]
*[[Las Médulas]]
*Monastery and Site of the [[Escurial]], [[Madrid]]
*Monuments of [[Oviedo]] and the Kingdom of the [[Asturias]]
*Mudejar Architecture of [[Aragon]]
*Old City of [[Salamanca]]
*Old Town of [[Ávila]] with its Extra-Muros Churches
*Old Town of [[Cáceres]]
*Old Town of [[Segovia]] and its Aqueduct
*Palau de la Música Catalana and Hospital de Sant Pau, [[Barcelona]]
*Palmeral of [[Elche]]
*[[Poblet]] Monastery
*Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the [[Côa]] Valley and [[Siega Verde]]
*[[Pyrénées]] - [[Mont Perdu]]
*Renaissance Monumental Ensembles of [[Úbeda]] and [[Baeza]]
*Rock Art of the Mediterranean Basin on the Iberian Peninsula
*Roman Walls of [[Lugo]]
*Route of [[Santiago de Compostela]]
*Royal Monastery of [[Santa María de Guadalupe]]
*[[San Cristóbal de La Laguna]]
*[[San Millán Yuso]] and [[Suso]] Monasteries
*[[Santiago de Compostela]] (Old Town)
*[[Teide National Park]]
*[[Tower of Hercules]]
*University and Historic Precinct of [[Alcalá de Henares]]
*[[Vizcaya]] Bridge
*Works of [[Antoni Gaudí]]

==[[Sweden]]==

*Agricultural Landscape of Southern [[Öland]]
*[[Birka]] and [[Hovgården]]
*Church Village of Gammelstad, [[Luleå]]
*[[Engelsberg]] Ironworks
*Hanseatic Town of [[Visby]]
*High Coast / [[Kvarken]] Archipelago
*[[Laponia]]n Area
*Mining Area of the Great Copper Mountain in [[Falun]]
*Naval Port of [[Karlskrona]]
*Rock Carvings in [[Tanum]]
*Royal Domain of [[Drottningholm]]
*[[Skogskyrkogården]]
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc
*[[Varberg]] Radio Station

==[[Switzerland]]==

*Benedictine Convent of St John at [[Müstair]]
*Convent of [[St Gall]]
*[[La Chaux-de-Fonds]] / Le Locle, Watchmaking Town Planning
*[[Lavaux]], Vineyard Terraces
*[[Monte San Giorgio]]
*Old City of [[Berne]]
*Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the [[Alps]]
*Rhaetian Railway in the [[Albula]] / Bernina Landscapes
*Swiss [[Alps]] [[Jungfrau-Aletsch]]
*Swiss Tectonic Arena [[Sardona]]
*Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of [[Bellinzona]]

==[[Turkey]]==

*Archaeological Site of [[Troy]]
*City of [[Safranbolu]]
*[[Göreme National Park]] and the Rock Sites of [[Cappadocia]]
*Great Mosque and Hospital of [[Divrigi]]
*[[Hattusha]]: the [[Hittite]] Capital
*[[Hierapolis]]-[[Pamukkale]]
*Historic Areas of [[Istanbul]]
*[[Nemrut Dag]]
*[[Selimiye]] Mosque and its Social Complex
*[[Xanthos]]-[[Letoon]]

==[[Ukraine]]==

*[[Kiev]]: [[Saint-Sophia]] Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra
*[[L'viv]] – the Ensemble of the Historic Centre
*Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany
*Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmatian Metropolitans
*[[Struve]] Geodetic Arc

==[[United Kingdom]] of Great Britain and Northern Ireland==
[[File:Tower_bridge_London.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Tower Bridge]], [[United Kingdom]]]]
*[[Blaenavon]] Industrial Landscape
*[[Blenheim Palace]]
*[[Canterbury Cathedral]], [[St Augustine's Abbey]], and [[St Martin's Church]]
*Castles and [[Town Walls]] of [[King Edward]] in [[Gwynedd]]
*City of [[Bath]]
*[[Cornwall]] and West [[Devon]] Mining Landscape
*[[Derwent]] Valley Mills
*[[Dorset]] and East Devon Coast
*[[Durham]] Castle and Cathedral
*[[Frontier]]s of the [[Roman Empire]]
*[[Giant's Causeway]] and Causeway Coast
*[[Gough]] and Inaccessible Islands
*Heart of Neolithic [[Orkney]]
*[[Henderson Island]]
*Historic Town of [[St George]] and Related Fortifications, [[Bermuda]]
*[[Ironbridge Gorge]]
*[[Liverpool]] – Maritime Mercantile City
*Maritime [[Greenwich]]
*[[New Lanark]]
*Old and New Towns of [[Edinburgh]]
*[[Pontcysyllte]] Aqueduct and Canal
*[[Royal Botanic Gardens]], [[Kew]]
*[[Saltaire]]
*[[St Kilda]]
*[[Stonehenge]], Avebury and Associated Sites
*Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of [[Fountains Abbey]]
*[[Tower of London]]
*[[Westminster Palace]], [[Westminster Abbey]] and [[Saint Margaret's Church]]

==[[United States of America]]==
[[File:Grand_Canyon2.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Grand Canyon]], [[United States]]]]
*[[Cahokia Mounds]] State Historic Site
*[[Carlsbad Caverns National Park]]
*[[Chaco]] Culture
*[[Everglades National Park]]
*[[Grand Canyon National Park]]
*[[Great Smoky Mountains National Park]]
*[[Hawaii Volcanoes National Park]]
*[[Independence Hall]]
*[[Kluane]] / [[Wrangell-St Elias]] / [[Glacier Bay]] / [[Tatshenshini-Alsek]]
*[[La Fortaleza]] and [[San Juan National]] Historic Site in [[Puerto Rico]]
*[[Mammoth Cave National Park]]
*[[Mesa Verde National Park]]
*[[Monticello]] and the [[University of Virginia]] in [[Charlottesville]]
*[[Niagara Falls]]
*[[Olympic National Park]]
*[[Papahanaumokuakea]]
*[[Pueblo de Taos]]
*[[Redwood National Park|Redwood National and State Parks]]
*[[Statue of Liberty]]
*[[Waterton Glacier International Peace Park]]
*[[Yellowstone National Park]]
*[[Yosemite National Park]]

== See also ==
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Africa]]
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Arab States]]
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and the Pacific]]
*[[List of World Heritage Sites in Latin America and the Caribbean]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Europe]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:American History]]

Talk:Rugby World Cup

2012-01-24T00:47:28Z

ScottDG:

Rugby World Cup

2012-01-24T00:29:53Z

ScottDG: Undo revision 956240 by WilcoxD (talk) This is really important. Ask Rob

The [[International Rugby Board|IRB]] '''Rugby World Cup''' is the most prestigious tournament in the sport of [[rugby (Sport)|rugby union]]. It is contested every four years by 20 national teams. It was first held in 1987 but has grown to be one of the world's largest sporting events.

The next Rugby World Cup will be held in England in 2015, followed by Japan in 2019.

Its closest equivalent in American sports is the [[Super Bowl]].

==List of Tournament Winners==

1987 [[New Zealand]]

1991 [[Australia]]

1995 [[South Africa]]

1999 [[Australia]]

2003 [[England]]

2007 [[South Africa]]

2011 [[New Zealand]]

[[Category:Rugby]]

Talk:Newt Gingrich

2012-01-24T00:19:37Z

ScottDG: Reverted edits by RobSmith (talk) to last revision by KenN

Let's get a citation for the affair thing. It's publicly acknowledged, but it'll carry more weight if it has one. --[[User:John|John]] 23:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Recommend==
[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I noticed he was categorized under Category: 2008 Presidential candidates. He never officially declared candidacy, therefore he shouldn't be in it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:39, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal Vs. Conservative ==

I have removed Mr. Gingrich from the conservative category into that of of detestable liberals, as the front page of Conservapedia has claimed him to no longer be a true conservative, having embraced socialistic views on Medicare. --[[User:TeaPartyFreedom76|TeaPartyFreedom76]] 19:12, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Ethics Charges ==

Despite what his spokesperson says he was found guilty of ethics violation and had to pay a $300,000 fine. The panel found that he violated Rule 42 many times. The last three charges were dropped, as his spokesman said, in 1998 but not because they were without merit. The committee found that there was no evidence that he was still violating the rule and saw no reason to impose further sanctions.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich123198.htm</ref> I'm going to remove the quote from his spokesperson. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:04, 29 November 2011 (EST)

==Issues vs. quotes==

I've started a new section, which shows his stand on issues (or at least indicates areas of concern to him). This may contain direct quotations, but it would not be a random collection of quotes. Wikipedia has quote farms, some of which are use for [[quote mining]] (like "Bushisms"): Gingrich said this, see how it proves he's a nutcase!

I want our readers to be able to read a straightforward statement of the man's views, not "distortion by selection". See [[Star Parker]] for a test case. See also [[Quotation out of context]] and [[Putting words into someone's mouth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:27, 9 January 2012 (EST)

----
<references/>
==Personal life==
Gingrich is an orphan. The fact an orphan rises to the third highest office in the United States and is considered a viable candidate for President would be of more interest than the marital troubles intended as an obvious attack on his character should have precedence, at least in website written from a conservative viewpoint. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:Ah, so we should give him a by for being an two-time (at least) adulterer. Okay, I give up. Whatever. Whitewash it anyway you want, Rob. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::Gingrich is an orphan, right but that does not give him the right to live a sinful life !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:::John 8:10-11, ''Where are thine accusers?'' She said, ''No man, Lord.'' "Neither do I condemn thee." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:10-11&version=KJV] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::::I know the bible Rob, but you cannot just get out of everything with it. Would you excuse murder and rape the same way ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Moses was a murderer. So was David. And between them God wrote the Pentateuch and Psalms (incidentally, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Principles_+_Values.htm Hillary cites the Book of Psalms] as having inspired her to save her open marriage. As to rape, I'd have to do more bible research (and way off the point, I recently learned from the BBC that Uncle Joe Stalin condoned mass rape funded with [[Lend Lease]] dollars from [[FDR]], but that's neither here nor there...) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:59, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::::::And you are the one who speaks about [[Last wordism]] ? Come on, I am sure you understood my point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:48, 22 January 2012 (EST)

*According to Conservapedia, an [[orphan]] ''is a child who has lost both parents and has no one to look after them.'' I don't see how Newt Gingrich fits this description: [http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Parents-Grandparents.php republican-canditates.org]
*A more loose definition would probably cover Obama, too.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:51, 23 January 2012 (EST)

===How did CNN obtain sealed documents?===
So, the question is now, for SharonW who wishes to insert citations from what are ''supposed'' to be sealed documents, (1) [http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html How did CNN obtain personal, confidential, and what are supposed to be sealed court documents]? (2) The ethical implicationns of CNN publishing what may be illegally obtained personal, confidential, and sealed documents?, and (3) Should Conservapedia be used as a platform to further the agendas of liberal, radical, and unethical mainstrream news organizations such as CNN with the aim to cause personal, emotional, and professional harm to the reptation and career ambitions of people CNN does not like? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:09, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:The files weren't sealed. Here's a quote: "After initially '''''being told''''' that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk's drawer. Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN '''''his deputy took Gingrich's file out of the public records room around 1994''''', "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention," '''''because Skinner feared tampering and theft.''''' [http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html]. (Emphasis mine).

:From what I remember from the 1990s, it was '''''Gingrich''''' who caused the personal and emotional harm to people - his ex-wife and children. He is an adulterer, and I don't think that should be glossed over like you're attempting to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:10, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::The files were sealed (as all divorce records are). CNN obtained sealed files. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:35, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::So they were removed to avoid tampering and theft and wound being tampered with and stolen. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::"Alan Lee, the Carroll County Superior and State courts clerk, confirmed the divorce records were never sealed. Finding the original papers, first requested by Bloomberg and then CNN last week, was simply a matter of locating the box of paperwork in the Carroll County records room, not a drawer."[http://www.atlawblog.com/2011/12/gingrich-divorce-records-pose-question-for-carroll-county-court/] Not sealed, and not stolen. Guess you need to find a different theory to use. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 03:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::So we have enough evidence to suspect the theft and illegal handling of what should have been sealed documents, their subsequent mishandling and ethical abuses by CNN and other mainstream new sources, is part of what George Steponopalous calls the [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_23_16/ai_62896460/ Clinton's "scorched earth policy"], correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Except, of course, that divorce records are not routinely sealed in many states, INCLUDING GEORGIA.
:::::"Access to divorce records. Available to the general public. The state Vital Records Office will conduct a search to determine the occurrence of a divorce."[http://www.georgia.gov/00/channel_title/0,2094,4802_5009,00.html]

::::: One of the involved parties has to request a court order that they be sealed. Really, Rob, it took me about a minute to come up with this information. That's the beauty of public records. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:43, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::(a) the Georgia law can tell you the records exist, that is far different from being held for public viewing; (b) how do we know whether or not one party or the other requested they be sealed, being that (1) those posted on CNN's site are incomplete, and (2) the reluctance of ''both'' parties to discuss the case openly for 30 years? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::(c) and the site you posted clearly states the office "[http://health.state.ga.us/programs/vitalrecords/divorce.asp cannot issue a record]", and only copies of the decree are available, not the actually filings and record. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:03, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::I'm loving watching you twist in the wind to make this into a huge conspiracy. '''Divorce records are public records, and anyone can view them (and read them and make copies of them) at the courthouse.''' I do genealogy for a hobby, and review title searches as part of my job, and I see and obtain divorce records fairly regularly. It takes a court order to seal the records, and '''''the order sealing the records will be in the public records for anyone to see and read'''''.

:::::::And do you ''really'' think the courthouse is going to give you the original record? Of course it's a copy, and it can be certified if you pay for it. "Certified copies of divorce decrees are only available from the Clerk of the Superior Court in the county where the divorce was granted." (see previous link for quote.) A certified copy means it's an '''''exact copy''''', guaranteed by the issuing agency. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:14, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::A Certified copy of the Final Decree ''is not'' a copy of the original filings or hearing transcripts. Why don't ask the resident in house attorney, Mr. Shlafly, if divorce records are routinely available for public viewing in most states and courthouses in America? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:34, 23 January 2012 (EST)

==Stop the edit war!==
Shouldn't we agree on something instead of keep reverting everything ? My question is why do we hide this gossip whil we keep the gossip on democrats pages ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:01, 22 January 2012 (EST)

:(ec)[http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Quick_reference ''Conservapedia articles tone, style, and content should be written with an American, conservative and/or Christian orientation or focus. ''] If you're referring to debates on several other pages about the liberal concept of "open marriage", the Clinton marriage, as accurately cited from numerous sources, fits the definition of "open marriage" on both the sexual and non-sexual planes. In the Gingrich instance, ABC News correspondence, along with other liberal, mainstream, non--conservative and anti-conservative sources and journalists, clearly attack Gingrich's personal life to cause harm and personal suffering. These same journalists and news organizations in the cases the Clinton family and Obama family have repeated stated a candidates personal life, and that of their families and children, are off limits and out of bounds. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)

::Because liberals. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Gingrich publicly acknowledges having affairs with his second and third wives. That's not gossip. There are many rumors, and have been for years, about ''other'' Gingrich adulterous affairs, but those weren't added to the article because those ''are'' gossip. The rumors about Gingrich serving divorce papers to the hospital to his "dying" wife" are also rumors and have not been added. What has been added has been cited, and in many cases have court records to back them up. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:12, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:None of that material was reverted; the contrast with William Jefferson Clinton who publicly lied and misprisoned a felony, encouraging others to perjure themselves, has remained. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Why not to add a section about Morality==
That would include the fact that he is an unfaithful overweight man ? You know, the same kind of important information that is given for [[PZ Myers]] or [[Peter Singer]].--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:33, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Good point. But I think Gingrich has confessed to his love of donuts. How this translates to morality, I'm not sure. But donut eating is consumer [[stimulus]] spending, and thus creates jobs, ''nes pas''? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::Do you mean: ''n'est-ce pas''? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Orphan and third wife? ==

I tried to do a little research and from the sources I found it seems Newt was raised by his biological mother who had remarried?

Also recent edits seem to make it seem like he is still married to his second wife "Gingrich married Ginther in 1981. The couple separated in 1988, and reconciled in 1994." while removing the part of him and his aide. I'm not trying to berate the man, we are all sinners, granted some worse then others, but as a Christian Conservative I need a man who can protect marriage, and I suspect others agree. We have to be a trustworthy source for people to get to know their candidates and their values on marriage and religion. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 16:54, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Rugby World Cup

2012-01-23T23:23:11Z

ScottDG:

Rugby World Cup

2012-01-23T23:22:17Z

ScottDG:

The [[International Rugby Board|IRB]] '''Rugby World Cup''' is the most prestigious tournament in the sport of [[rugby (Sport)|rugby union]]. It is contested every four years by 20 national teams. It was first held in 1987 but has grown to be one of the world's largest sporting events.

The next Rugby World Cup will be held in England in 2015, followed by Japan in 2019.

Its closest equivalent in American sports is the [[Superbowl]].

==List of Tournament Winners==

1987 [[New Zealand]]

1991 [[Australia]]

1995 [[South Africa]]

1999 [[Australia]]

2003 [[England]]

2007 [[South Africa]]

2011 [[New Zealand]]

[[Category:Rugby]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-01-23T22:59:17Z

ScottDG:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]], [[Marxism]], and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It has been disputed by some groups whether Obama was actually born in the United States; some people allege that he was born in Kenya. On April 27, 2011 Obama officially released his long form birth certificate, which many experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity .

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/]
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's second year as Commander-in-Chief, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the 469 who died during Presisdent [[George W. Bush]]'s final year in office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to end the War in Iraq, which he has done.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-01-23T22:58:44Z

ScottDG:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]], [[Marxism]], and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined], according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It has been disputed by some groups whether Obama was actually born in the United States; some people allege that he was born in Kenya. On April 27, 2011 Obama officially released his long form birth certificate, which many experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity .

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/]
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's second year as Commander-in-Chief, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the 469 who died during Presisdent [[George W. Bush]]'s final year in office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to end the War in Iraq, which he has done.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-01-23T22:43:31Z

ScottDG:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]], [[Marxism]], and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Fatalities in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama than during the eight preceding years combined.<ref>Congressional Research service, p. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It has been disputed by some groups whether Obama was actually born in the United States; some people allege that he was born in Kenya. On April 27, 2011 Obama officially released his long form birth certificate, which many experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity .

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/]
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's second year as Commander-in-Chief, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the 469 who died during Presisdent [[George W. Bush]]'s final year in office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to end the War in Iraq, which he has done.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

User talk:ScottDG

2012-01-23T04:02:41Z

ScottDG: /* Personnal Life */

[[File:Chopping down evolutionary belief.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Question evolution! campaign]] ]]
An advocate of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:

"We have some great news to report! A person who loves the [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his [[Question evolution! campaign|Question evolution!]] axe at the rotten tree of [[evolution|evolutionism]] and nothing is going to distract him.

We already know that the evolutionists are impotent against the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer] so the widespread distribution of these questions is going to be very demoralizing to evolution supporters. Questioning, [[Critical thinking|critical reasoning]] and open inquiry are toxic to evolutionary belief so we are very much looking forward to the widespread dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign."[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/10/question-evolution-campaign-axman.html]

See: [[Enthusiastic responses to the Question evolution! campaign|Responses to the Question evolution! campaign]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:19, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

== Gingrich ==

Please show what I have added is incorrect before deleting. Thank you. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Personnal Life==
I've seen that you reverted the personal life info added for [[Newt Gingrich]] because of "Gossip". Don't you think we should also remove all the gossip on democrats page as well? See [[Barack Hussein Obama#Early life]] or [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]] or [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] or [[Hillary_Clinton#Reaction_to_Monica_Lewinsky_scandal]] ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:nope. Because liberals. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 21:36, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::Is it supposed to be a joke ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:37, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:::I think he means that liberals often have issues about their personal lives ignored or defended by the media, so we often have to make out by covering info that isn't often seen. For conservatives, the media tends to constantly attack and bring up gossip. I'm not saying that Gingrich's personal life should not be covered here, but I don't think we should elaborate it to a great degree as it is not that relevant to his actual candidacy. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:00, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Nope. I mean that on Conservapedia, "liberals" is as much justification as you need to make any edit. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 23:02, 22 January 2012 (EST)