Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Tim Tebow

2011-12-12T13:17:43Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 944705 by ChrisBrandimarte (talk)

[[File:Tim Tebow.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Timothy Richard Tebow''', known as '''Tim Tebow''' (born August 14, 1987), is an [[American]] [[football]] player who first gained fame while playing for the 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 the [[University of Florida]] at Gainesville. He was selected by the [[Denver Broncos]] as the 25th pick of the first round of the 2010 NFL Draft. '''''Tebow is one of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservapedia's Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]'''''.

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''.

==Personal life==

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

== References ==

<references/>

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

Richard Dawkins

2011-12-12T13:17:20Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 944704 by ChrisBrandimarte (talk)

[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|Richard Dawkins]]
Clinton '''Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal_Society|FRS]], FRSL, born March 26, 1941 (age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a [[biologist|biologist]], [[evolution|evolutionist]], [[atheism|atheist]], and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]]. Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have been on the topic of [[evolution|evolutionary biology]]. Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the [[Irreligion and superstition|irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> Moreover, in terms of the [[theism]] vs. [[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[theology]] and [[philosophy]]. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>

Richard Dawkins has also established [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents]]. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In October of 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Mariano Grinbank]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of atheism and the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]]. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<ref name="cv">http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml</ref>

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|right|When Richard Dawkins was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref>

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992; at present, the two are still married.

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|250px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref> The video can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]

Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] postulates that Richard Dawkins may not truly be an atheist, but perhaps Richard Dawkins is merely a God hater.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his atheistic contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|306px|right|[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[Atheism|atheist]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler />]]

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]]

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution|evolutionary]] science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here] and [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%22billions-and-billions-demons%22 here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution|evolutionary]] quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]).<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>
== New Atheism ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]] and [[Daniel Dennett]].

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a [[liberal]], speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, 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> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[Creationism|creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|right|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[Atheism and suicide|atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals]].<ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303</ref><ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]]

In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins]]

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|251px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,2384,n,n</ref>

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...<ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref>}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

==Richard Dawkins Lost a Debate to a Rabbi and then Claimed the Debate Never Took Place==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,
 
 
(photo by Shane Pope, Title: Richard Dawkins, obtained from [http://flickr.com/photos/shanepope/2402173645/ Flickr, see license agreement)] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}

Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<ref>http://anhonestdebate.com/2007/09/03/shmuley-boteach-vs-richard-dawkins/</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlnVe934u38&feature=related</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There is now growing public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> [[YouTube]] recently featured a video which incorporates an audio excerpt of Craig stating that he would like to debate Dawkins and also features Dr. Craig commenting on Dawkins refusal to debate him.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref>

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|right|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”<ref>http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33209</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate [[creation|creationists]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of [[creationism]]/[[creation science]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig|Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig]] one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of [[Creation Ministries International]] is not surprising given that there are [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents]]. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach]] according to the college audience.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Atheism|Atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]],
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at [[Creation Ministries International]]:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem [[evolution|for quite valid reasons]] so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|debate strong theistic debaters]] is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it]], shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previosly Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>.(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelarmr/668738335/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation.<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref> In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and the women and minority population ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|250px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref>
 
 
Recently, [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/constantweader/2404429188/ Flickr] photo, see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Elevatorgate]]

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> One possible explanation of many women's lack of interest in the message of Richard Dawkins is the [[abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]. For example, as note earlier, in September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html</ref> Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism]] and [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, as noted earlier, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]] )

Recently, as alluded to earlier [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

See also: [[Elevatorgate]]

'''Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus'''

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}

=== Racial Minority population views' of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website richarddawkins.net: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> In addition, according to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website samharris.org: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This suggest that the New Atheist movement may be significantly less appealing to racial minorities.

=== Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the white male audience ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the Quantcast data, white males appear to be the group of individuals who are most receptive to Richard Dawkins' and atheist [[Sam Harris]]' message.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This finding suggest that [[New Atheism]] movement is significant more appealing to white males.

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between the theory of [[evolution]] and the opposing positions of [[Creation Science|creation science]] and [[intelligent design]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that [[creationism]] or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an [[atheist]] and evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When [[atheists]] attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain.<ref>http://www.robertwinston.org/main.html</ref> In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality".<ref name="deedes">[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article1220658.ece Henry Deedes, Friends disunited on the place of religion in science, The Independent, August 21, 2006]</ref> Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<ref name="deedes" />

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.<ref>http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11</ref>}}

[[Atheist]] philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<ref name="TDD3" />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: [[Atheist]] Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

==Darwin's Rottweiler and the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/seattle.shtml</ref>}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/[[intelligent design]] circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August of 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref name="WWD">Fraser, Bill,[http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html Who wins the Debates?]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref name="WWD" />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref name="WWD" /> Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

==Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>http://www.christianity.com/1350327/</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and as noted earlier two of his marriages ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|110px|right|Ex-[[atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October of 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> [[Atheist]] [[author]] and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that [[atheists]] should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>[[Psychology|Psychologist]] and [[ex-atheist]] Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he focuses on his study of the lives of more than a dozen leading [[atheists]].<ref>Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of [[Atheism]]], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref> Dr. Vitz has stated there were two common factors he observed in the leading [[atheists]] he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref> Richard Dawkins is listed as an "Enthusiastic Bright" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[Philosopher|philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

==Non-Academic Position at Oxford==
Up until his retirement from the post in September 2008, Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]], having been appointed as the first holder of this endowed position<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>. One Reverend has accused him of using his post "not to promote science, but rather his own [[atheistic]] materialist philosophy."<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1374931.ece</ref>

The "post" was a donated one, and is not a normal professorship<ref> "[...] the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College, on such terms and conditions as Council and the General Board may determine, and to provide support costs for such a post to be administered in accordance with ibid., cl. 5." [http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec]</ref> at the Museum of Natural History, an institution owned by the [[University of Oxford]]. The "post" did not entail "substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University." According to the Simonyi Professorship website, the professor holding this position is to "communicate scientific ideas through a variety of media, in order to reach a wide range of people."<ref> "[...] the Simonyi Professor is not expected to undertake substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University: any such efforts should be directed primarily towards the education of non-specialists." [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml Aims of the Simonyi Professorship]</ref> However, in a review of the book ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' by Richard Dawkins, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] has stated regarding Dawkins's position at Oxford:
[[Image:35242.jpg‎|right|thumb|125px|Paul Johnson]]
{{cquote|British author Paul Johnson called it ‘Oxford’s first Chair of [[Atheism]].’ But true (operational) science involves repeatable, observable experimentation in the present, which includes [[physics]], [[chemistry]], experimental [[biology]] and [[geology]], etc. ... Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science.<ref name="cotw" />}}

It has been claimed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that the special terms of this gift might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor" as he believes a decree by Oxford seems to imply this. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote about Dawkins' claim to legitimate professorship:
{{cquote|Many publications refer to you as 'Professor' Richard Dawkins, even though, as your critics maintain, leading Universities regularly deny to any Professor who played a role in acquiring the funding for their own chair the use of the title. Your critics may be wrong here, Richard, but they cite the fact that the Oxford University Hebdomadal Council Decree of 6 November 1995, establishing the Charles Simonyi Professorship, says that you hold a "post" rather than a "professorship." They write that since your post was endowed by Charles Simonyi and the terms of the gift allowed you to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required for a professorship, it will become a "professorship" only when a subsequent beneficiary is promoted to the position based on a peer review election process, which, they maintain, was not conducted for your receipt of the post. Now, you defended yourself in a posting on your website, dated Sept. 28, 2006, and wrote that you were "elected to the Charles Simonyi Professorship." But that does seem to directly contradict the Hebdamadol Council decree cited above which expressly says "Notwithstanding the provisions of Ch. VII, Sect. III (which discuss the election of a professor to the post), the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College." It seems, so your critics contend, that your appointment was a condition of the grant rather than the product of an election, and since it may be that you are falsely maligned in the matter, your clarification as to the true nature of your professorship, whose official location is the Museum of Natural History, is welcomed."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>}}

Richard Dawkins announced his intention to retire from his position in September 2008:

:"The University of Oxford has advertised the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. I retire from the Chair in September 2008."<ref>[http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2246,Charles-Simonyi-Professorship-in-the-Public-Understanding-of-Science,Richard-Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science]</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989) 
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990) 
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990) 
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997) 
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001) 
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005) 
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006) 
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007) 
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science 
* Fellow of the Royal Society<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''New York Times'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''The Selfish Gene'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''The God Delusion'' (2006)
* ''The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

== Essays relating to Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]]
*[[Essay: Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?|Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?]]

== Comedy and satires concerning Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]] - [[satire]]
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins in his native habitat|Richard Dawkins in his native habitat]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience|Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign| Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign]] - satire

==See Also==

*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[Conservapedia: Richard Dawkins Project|Richard Dawkins Project]]
*[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters|This year's best atheist debaters]] - [[satire]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

== External Links ==

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Articles/videos on Richard Dawkins dodging debates:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the cowardly clown]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/will-william-lane-craig-debate-richard-dawkins Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrW-ZUjyWmU Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''News stories:'''

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1122dawkins.asp Richard Dawkins Foundation plan to supply [[atheist]] literature to schools]
*[http://ronaldandcob.com/richarddawkins_thegoddelusion.html A critique of The God Delusion by P M Doyle]
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2008/05/professor-dawkins-rabbi-boteach-and.html Professor Dawkins, Rabbi Boteach, and Adolf Hitler]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

'''Other:'''

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins A fawning article on Richard Dawkins by Wikipedia] ([[Wikipedia]] was founded by atheist [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Larry Sanger]])

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: New Atheism]]
[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

User:DavidE

2011-12-10T13:39:45Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 944196 by WickyWickyNoNo (talk)

{{userboxtop|DavidE}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User Law}}
{{User Vandalized|16}}
{{userboxbottom}}
KJV, YEC, GOP, and not at all PC! I believe in what the Bible says, not in what some liberal "pastor" feels that the Bible should say. I also believe in the entire Bible; I am not the sort of Christian who believes just in those parts of the Bible that he likes, and only when they suit him. I do not believe that those parts of the Bible that inconvenience me are to be explained away, while those parts of the Bible that apply only to someone else are to be retained, and I am suspicious of any form of Bible interpretation that the homosexuals could turn around and use to justify their lifestyle choice.

One thing that I like about Conservapedia, and one reason why I think that it is so important, is that edits relying on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture aren't constantly reverted in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" or discounted as "vandalism," as they are on certain liberal sites that I could name.

Please don't lump all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians into a single "Protestant" mass. As an Independent Fundamental Baptist, I hold views very different from those of Episcopalians and other mainline Protestants. Before telling me what I do or do not believe, please take the time to find out.

April 11, 2011, was my fourth anniversary of editing Conservapedia.

Liberal vandals have repeatedly vandalized both my user page and my talk page. I wonder why they bother, since liberal trolls, vandals, and parodists are always found out so quickly here.

[[Category:Baptist Conservapedians]]

User talk:DavidE

2011-12-10T13:39:42Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 944197 by WickyWickyNoNo (talk)

{{welcome}} A little late but ya know! :P --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for the welcome. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 15:22, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite welcome! *grin* --[[User:BethanyS|BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 12:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your edit on David.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:29, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
:You're welcome, and thank you for all of the work that you've put into Conservapedia. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 15:37, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Wikipedia as a Liberal website==

I've had [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deliberate_ignorance&curid=59383&diff=777288&oldid=776455&rcid=854743 the same problem] at Wikipedia. Is it really an encyclopedia, or just a discussion board posing as one? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:30, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
:Good question, and I'm inclined to think the latter. Wikipedia articles all too often get hijacked by people who care more about their pet opinions than about the facts. In typical liberal fashion, they've construed "NPOV" to mean "my POV." [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 13:06, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

==Merging the streams==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thames_River&curid=112790&diff=877403&oldid=875266&rcid=1187409 Nice merge], keep up the good work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:49, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

==Good golly!==

I had no idea you've been here for 4 years. How could I have missed all your contributions? (Probably because I was too busy interacting with project opponents). Anyway thank you for creating [[Cafeteria Christianity]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:38, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
:You're welcome, and I'm glad you like it. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 16:17, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

==Oops!==

Actually you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 did the merge] ... I will now go eat my words. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:40, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

==Merging in your sleep==

How about merging [[dormancy]] with [[hibernation]] and [[aestivation]]? The first is the main article, with the 2nd two just being seasonal ways of saying the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:33, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 11:28, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

== Edit to [[Bible]] in the dictionary project ==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Dictionary_Project_%28B%29&curid=115858&diff=912739&oldid=911665 this edit]; I wasn't very clear the first time, but your addition is much better than my original. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:47, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
:You're quite welcome, and I'm glad you liked my edit. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 06:52, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Promotion: blocking privileges ==

Congratulations, David: now you can block other accounts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:33, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:Thank you for the trust that you have put in me. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 07:24, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== Username ==

You blocked my ip because my username was not a first name and initial. I would like to point out that it does not state anywhere that this is a requirement of signing up.{{unsigned|RileyS}}
:From the sign-up screen: " Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps the IP address being blocked. Frivolous user names, names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, may also result in that user name being blocked. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred. Also, do not create multiple accounts."--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:59, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Yes, I read this and I do not think that my username fell into any of these categories other that the extraordinarily broad, "is whatever you want it to be" category of "Frivolous user names" {{unsigned|RileyS}}
:It is a frivolous username. Conservapedia requires usernames be based on your real name. Also, sign your comments with four tildes, like this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:05, 15 November 2011 (EST)
::Perhaps this should be clarified in the statement, to prevent further misinterpretation of well meaning users. [[User:RileyS|RileyS]] 09:15, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Marriage Privatization ==

Thanks for adding the conservative counterargument to [[marriage privatization]]. When I wrote it, I meant for it to be fair and balanced, but I couldn't find enough of a conservative argument against it. Keep up the good work. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:11, 8 December 2011 (EST)
:You're quite welcome. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 18:03, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears

2011-12-10T00:27:10Z

Sid 3050: Please supply a link. Few will want to go through two years of COI/N archives to find the discussion you mention.

This article describes the [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to smears against [[Conservapedia]]:
# On Wikipedia's article which lists most online encyclopedias an edit done from an anonymous IP address defamed Conservapedia by labeling it Far-right <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_online_encyclopedias&action=historysubmit&diff=326381379&oldid=315763628</ref> This edit lasted for close to 2 months until it was finally removed by a conservative editor. The label has been put back in, and it persists even after being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.{{fact}} Three citations are given, but none of them say that Conservapedia is far right.
#[[Wikipedia]] often treats [[conservative]] figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal [[double standard]]. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2011-11-27T22:12:51Z

Sid 3050:

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Conservapedia proven right

2011-11-27T20:57:33Z

Sid 3050: Trim: Conclusion was based on wrong data

'''''Conservapedia''''' content has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to the World Cup, even with respect to statements that dimwitted [[liberals]] have ridiculed. Examples include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal]] claptrap in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken liberals, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|The Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a "Jon Stewart Curse" that he brings to all his movies." <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids are clueless.
|His subsequent hosting of the Oscars in 2008 set the modern record for its smallest number of viewers.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly calls [[Barack Obama]] and [[Michelle Obama]] [[liberal elite|liberal elitists]] before the 2008 election and in 2009. See also: [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] and [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]]
|Many liberals have a [[Messiah]] complex about Barack Obama and even comparisons to the caring and suffering servant Messiah [[Jesus Christ]] are made. The liberal press gives Obama a free pass on his uncharitable past and his liberal elitism.
|During a time of severe economic problems in the United States and the world, Barack Obama plays game after game of golf, takes lavish vacations, and Michelle Obama goes on expensive shopping sprees. The liberal press and the liberal establishment are increasingly souring on Obama and even calling him lazy and incompetent.
|2008-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares [[atheism]] is corrupt and wrongheaded and that the future of atheism does not look promising. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles]
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In August of 2011, the American Spectator reports that [[Global atheism]] is declining and [[global Christianity]] is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref>
|2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares since its early beginnings that atheist community is filled with insincere, corrupt and cowardly individuals. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles] In addition, in 2010 Conservapedia [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|creates a comedy/satire]] concerning the cowardice of [[Richard Dawkins]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). In July of 2010, a Conservapedia creates a series of comedies/[[satire]]s focusing on the follies of atheism and [[evolutionism]] (see: [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]).
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and satires and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In 2010, the Global atheist convention dodges a debate with [[Creation Ministries International]]. In 2011, [[Richard Dawkins]] is accused of cowardice in the press and widely criticized in other venues for his refusal to debate Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]]. [[PZ Myers]] repeatedly refuses to debate [[Vox Day]] in 2011. In 2011, in a foul mouthed diatribe [[Penn Jillette]] makes a lame excuse on why he won't debate a Conservapedian which is shown to be a farce. Jillette also dodges a debate the popular YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] and with the Christian apologist [[Sye Ten Bruggencate|Sye Ten Bruggencate]]. For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]
|2010-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly says its web traffic prospects look bright.
|Liberals, particularly atheists and [[evolution]]ists, repeatedly proclaim the imminent death of Conservapedia and their predictions repeatedly end in failure.
|According to the web traffic companies Alexa, Compete and Quantcast Conservapedia's web traffic is healthy and has continues to grow. Conservapedia creates the essay [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] which mocks atheists and evolutionists false predictions and obsessiveness.
|2007 to 2011
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|Nov. 28, 2009
|[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]: "the theory fails"
|Clueless liberals insisted the theory must be true regardless of counterexamples
|The basic assumption of the theory -- that nothing can go faster than the speed of light -- is disproved repeatedly by an experiment.
|November 2011
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|Sept. 19, 2010
|[[Newt Gingrich]] is the most [[Presidential Election 2012|likely to win the Republican nomination for President]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=819261</ref>
|Liberals, who have long opposed Gingrich, wrote him off as a candidate in mid-2011
|Newt leads in national polls and several key primary states
|November 2011
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Help talk:Contents

2011-11-27T16:21:55Z

Sid 3050: /* I was blocked - UNFAIR */

How do I revert a vandalized page to a previous state? I recently tried to change back a vandalized page but could not figure out how to put in the original references at the end of the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:38, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Good Question! Click on the contribs for the user who made the changes. Beside the edit, there is a button that says "rollback". Click that and the edit will be reverted. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 18:40, 21 February 2007 (EST)

: That method only works if you are a "sysop" (admin). I would recommend just copying the changed stuff fromt he previous revision. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I figured out how to do it by clicking the date of the previous edit before the vandalism under that page's history. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:46, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Signatures ==

I've looked around but I can't figure out how to leave a signature when I post to a discussion page. Can someone help? Thanks.
:Just type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> for your signature. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 19:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==What is with this site?==
Every third click gets a "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" message. What gives? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 00:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Interwiki links==

Sure would be convenient if we could link to Wikipedia without having to type all that http stuff. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: From what I've been able to tell, links to Wikipedia seem to be looked down upon a bit. Though some users here are also from [[CreationWiki]], and that might be another one that people might want to link to. I guess it takes some [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Guide_for_system_administrators_for_setting_up_interwiki_linking direct poking at the database] to set these up... perhaps {{user|Conservapedia Webmaster}} would be the one to do this? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Images ==

The two entries, "How to upload a image" and "How to place an image on a page" are exactly the same....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I need help trying to upload images on my computer and says that .jpg is not a recommended file name. I saw it as one of the several options to do on the upload page. I got the file name and filled in the summary. What's wrong? --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 18:26, 7 April 2007

==Formatting==
Is there a standard format for pages? Are there examples of that? Shouldn't that be listed here? Do you have notability standards at all? If not, can I make a page about my mom? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 05:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blocked Users/IP Addresses.... ==

Is this something all users will be able to see?

Someone posted over on Andy's page, with privacy concerns about the IP thing. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

If the Webmaster will institute a page for Metals or Metallurgy, I will begin to add a number of terms and definitions as well as other information to that page that may be helpful to others that are looking for information on that topic. PhilH.
:You can create the page yourself, not hard. Do a search for it, then click the "start new page" link. This is a wiki, you can contribute.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creating a path to essay of a subject new to Conservapedia ==

I have created a page on a topic of abortion, but it is almost non-findable. I need to know how to make it findable. Right now, I think the only way to find it is by searching for "Separate Life". Not many people are going to know that they should do this.

The way I thought it should be is this:

1) From main page, search for abortion. Go.

2) Click on Separate Life in the Contents

So I need to know how to list it in the Contents.
I would also then need to know how to make a link so that if one clicks on Separate Life, his computer would take him to the Separate Life page. [[User:Earl100|Earl100]]

*You could create a new page, and move the old one to it, no?--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

No. I don't even understand that.

*I will refer this to the CPWebmaster, whom I know can help you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:29, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I would suggest two ways to do this. One would be to put one or more categories at the bottom of the page, like this : <nowiki>[[category:medicine]]</nowiki> - and preview to make sure the cats exist; or look on the list of categories that "category" will then link to to find one or more appropriate cats. Each category gets its own tag. It is suggested that all articles should be categorized, by the way. The other way is to look for articles on similar topics, and see if they should mention the topic of your new article. If so, include such a sentence or mention (or a "See Also") and link them to your file. Just make sure it makes sense in the article you link from. Hope this helps! [[User:Human|Human]] 15:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: Earl, if you want to make a link to a page enclose the title of the page in two brackets, like this, <nowiki>[[Separate Life]]</nowiki>. I just added your essay to the bottom of the [[abortion]] page as "Essay on abortion." Let me know if you need any more help. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 15:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== How do I create a Category page? ==

How do I create a Category page? I am trying to create the category of [[Accounting terms]] (for the [[asset]], [[liability]], and [[Balance Sheet]] pages) but I don't know how to do it - can anyone help, please? thanks --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 23:40, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:Where your articles have [[:category|Accounting terms]] at the bottom of the page (under "category"), click on that red link, and you will find yourself on the [[:category|Accounting terms]] page, which will list the three articles. in a sense, you've already done it! But in order to turn those red links into blue links, put something in the edit box on that page, so that the page contains more than just the list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much for the explanation! It was so simple to do that I feel foolish now, lol :p The difficulty came because I wasn't typing anything in the edit box, thinking the list of pages would be automatically generated with the new page (it was, but I needed to type something too). Again, thank you. --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 14:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uploading images ==
I understand about the ability to upload images, but I am lost at what kind of images should be uploaded to Wikipedia and what image licenses should be avoided or not. Thanks. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 16:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*You need to ask Wikipedia about that! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

**Ok, sorry about that. I meant to say Conservapedia (it's getting hard typing the new name out, to be honest). I ask the question of uploading images, since I know about two image resources we can use for photos, mostly of state leaders. I just wasn't sure what your policies were. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Most State Leaders are considered Public Domain, especially when taken from government sites. If you can be more specific, I can attempt to answer you, or (more likely) find you the answer ;-). --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:01, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
**The websites I plan on uploading the images from are from Kremlin.ru and, hopefully, president.gov.by. They are the official websites of the Russian and Belarusian presidency, respectively. I will provide the text, in English, in a few. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 15:12, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
**Ok, from the President of Belarus: ''Use of materials of the portal - The materials of portal can be used in the media, be extended in the network the Internet without any limitations on volume and periods of publication. Reference to the ultimate source is only condition. No preliminary agreement to the use of materials of portal from the side of the press- service of the President of republic Belarus' it is required. '' [http://www.president.gov.by/press28825.html]. For the President of Russia, please read [http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/articles/about_siteEng06.shtml]. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 15:18, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
''"All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels '''and Internet sites.''' The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website."''
</blockquote>

So you merely state in the comment box when you upload, that the picture is "free use". :-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:Alright, thanks a bunch. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 17:41, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Why? Why? ==

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by SharonS. The reason given is Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Celtish". The reason given for Celtish's block is: "'".

You can contact SharonS or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is 90.240.152.67, and the block ID is #18750. Please include either or both of these in any queries.

== Help please? I'm new, and I'm lost, and I can't figure out where to go==
For the sake of ease, can I have an email with someone? I don't really understand this, and I really only wanted to write an essay about liberals reading conservapedia articles. I am a hardcore liberal, and I have always held Conservapedia in high regards, but I have a few things that I wanted to mention to people of Conservapedia as a whole. I don't really know how to do anything of any sorts, so can someone in authority please give me an email? Obi.binks@gmail.com Thanks! -- [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 22:56, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

*Exculpatory1 on AIM, I am. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:15, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:Or click the "E-mail this user" link in the "edit console" box on the left of a user's page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Help:How to Code==
can someone add a link to [[Help:How to Code]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:31, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Upload images? ==

How do I get into the Upload images group? [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:21, 31 January 2009 (EST)
: See [[Conservapedia:User rights#Requesting further rights]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Funny link==
The page for "how can I contact you" is this: [[Conservapedia:Contact Us]]. However, there is no info here. It looks like a talk page. Should be cleaned up or something. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:05, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Editing an existing page? ==

How do I edit an existing page? I am new to the world of online encyclopedia editing and I can't find an "edit" button or anything of the sort. {{Unsigned|BlueMoon}} --- 07:05, 24 June 2009

:At the very top of pages, you will see an "edit" tab, and another one that simply has a "+" on it. For talk pages you would typically use the "+" to add a new section, introduce a new topic/question. To add a response to a current sub-head, look at the page, on the right side, there will be an edit button for each sub header. Rather than opening the entire lengthy page, it will open for editing only that particular section. I left a welcome message on your own talk page. It has links to our Editors Guide, and other helpful information for new editors. If you run into something you don't understand, simply go to my talk page, and leave a question. BTW, the button at the top when in edit mode, that looks like handwriting, use it to sign your posts...clicking it will auto-add your signature and time stamp to your posts. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Can you translate Conservapedia to Brazilian Portuguese? ==

Hello, Conservapedia, I'm really very sorry for sending a message to you here, so I'd much difficulty of finding your contact, I'm not sure here's the contact, I want to ask you.

Can you speak Brazilian Portuguese? Can you translate the Conservapedia site into Brazilian Portuguese? I speak English '''very well''', but '''not fluently'''. At sometimes I can understand some words and have much difficulty of understanding the very complicated words and/or expressions in English, that don't exist in my dictionaries, in some artciles of this site.

I hope your answer

== Please add this question ==

*[[:Category:Everything|Where is Conservapedia’s topical directory]]? --''Safety[[User:Safety|U]]|[[User talk:Safety|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Safety|C]]'' 16:11, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::Done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:18, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Hello, and please forgive me if I have posted this in the wrong section (I saw that I was unable to edit [[Conservapedia:Desk]]). I have heard about Conservapedia offering courses on a television program. Would someone kindly tell me where these courses may be and where I could take them? Thank you for your time. [[User:NP|NP]] 18:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Over in our "Educational Index." See [[Conservapedia:Index]]. We're in the 13th week of a 15-week Economics course, but all the materials, homework and model answers are online if you want to catch up. The final exam is a month away and you could prepare and take it. In late January we start a Writing Course. All posted materials are available for you to work through any of the courses on your own if you prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 December 2009 (EST)

== Firefox/Thunderbird Search Engine? ==

I just found Conservapedia! How have I missed it all this time??? Can you create a search engine to use with "SearchWith" add-on for Firefox/Thunderbird? See: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2194 I'd much rather search here than with Google, Wiki, etc. etc. Thanks. Margaret, Portland OR.

== Embedding video ==

There are some excellent abortion related videos available for embed that would be fantastic for the abortion project. Can they be embedded? Or do I have to link to an outside page?[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 14:55, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

== I was blocked - UNFAIR ==

I was working on the conservative songs list.I did not remove or edit any.

You have liberal activists listed there. Tracy Chapman, Pearl Jam are activists and raise money for Obama.
I did not edit them even though they do not belong there. I got no warning and I was blocked.

If I did anything wrong, I was not aware I was doing it.

I listed true conservative artists with popular songs.
Was I supposed to ask first?
Suddenly, I was blocked due to tampering.
You invite people to list their conservative songs - which I did!
So why was I blocked?

By the way, a famous...VERY famous musician asked me not to list his song there because of the Liberal activists on the list.
He asked me not to name him so I can't tell you who it is.

I did nothing wrong.
I think this is a cliquey group.
If you block people for adding true conservatives to a conservative list, then you have no right calling yourself Consevapedia.
You just didn't like my choice.
I didn't like your reasons to call a song conservative.
I still NEVER edited them; I left them alone.

If you block me for listing the TRUTH, you are as bad as the liberal media. {{unsigned|SusanF}}
:I can't find any entries in your Block Log, so maybe general editing was simply turned off (again)? Seems to be unrelated to your particular activity unless you were reverted/warned anywhere. If you're unsure whether your edits are acceptable, you can always ask on the article's talk page. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:21, 27 November 2011 (EST)

User talk:Jpatt

2011-11-26T19:02:18Z

Sid 3050: /* Oversight of my talk page? */

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Your block policy ==

I was just wondering; why are you blocking people with the reason that they don't give their name?

People can simply say whatever name they wanted and you wouldn't know if it is true or not.
More importantly the account creation page states that submitting your name is '''optional'''
Can please explain the reasoning behind your block policy?

ps: I'd appreciate you not blocking me merely for asking this question. I just ask out of curiosity ;)

Thanks.

[[User:Philny|Philny]] 18:20, 4 January 2011 (EST)
:Just as it is optional for first name last initial, the block policy is of the administrators discretion. It helps eliminate sock accounts used by [troll]]s and if the user is truly interested in contributing in good faith, they will recreate their username as commanded. Do users/trolls use fake names? absolutely. Are you really Phil? I chose not to recreate your account but I could be wrong about you. Time will tell. Hope this is a sufficient answer. Have a great day! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:28, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Jpatt. In all honesty I don't see how your practice would help eliminate sock accounts. People can simply lie about who they are. Socks are best controlled through an IP range block if you asked me.
::Lastly I would think that good faith would be assumed for new people until they explicitly become trolls/vandals. but hey that's just me.
::I'm still trying to get rid of those liberal Wikipepdia ways. [[User:Philny|Philny]] 19:54, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Is it foolproof? No. They are not blocked from contributing just blocked from using that name. So it is of good faith on our part to allow them to recreate a username. I did not create the policy and I was subject to the same policy when I first joined. We'll banish someone when needed and we will ferret out those fake accounts over time. To obey an administrators request is the first step toward recognizing a good faith contributor.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:18, 4 January 2011 (EST)

::::Hi. My former name was STramp, but you seem to have decided that that cannot be my real name. I'm not quite sure why?[[User:StevenTramp|StevenTramp]] 21:23, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Re:Welcome! ==

Thanks for the welcome! I'll be sure to read the Editor's Guide ;) --[[User:AznBurger|AznBurger]] 21:36, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Conservative 3737, "everything you say is conservative" ==

...but really not [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chris_Matthews&curid=10356&diff=846659&oldid=846644 family-friendly.] Thanks for heading him off! [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:32, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:The IP is a school and he didn't actually cuss which would cross the line. I am willing to give a second chance if the rules are followed. BTW, I hope no hard feelings for targeting you in the past. Your edits were excellent.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:38, 5 February 2011 (EST)
::Life is too short for hard feelings. Good call on the "second chance" thing. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:39, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello, there is a reason I don't use my real name ==

I'll write you an email about it if you like, I would have before but you locked the email so I could not. Account creation was also turned off, which makes recreating my account difficult. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy2|AlaskanEconomy2]] 20:43, 8 February 2011 (EST)
:I now feel pretty foolish not having checked this account before creating that one. Thanks/sorry. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:52, 8 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for uploading that image yesterday. With regards to my username, I created it before there was any specific username policy on Conservapedia's Guidelines or Commandments page (even though I've only been contributing recently). If it is important that I have username that contains only my name/initials, I will change it. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 17:40, 18 February 2011 (EST)

== New conservative pages for 2011 ==

I noticed you were laying down plans for pages to create. I think you might consider making a page on the pence amendment, the recent 240-185 house vote to amend Title X to remove the family planning grants from organizations that perform abortions (like planned parenthood). While I support the decision the issue is outside of my area of specialization and I am afraid of getting some important facts wrong. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:Maybe at some future point. It's too early to determine the outcome. You're welcome to start it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== uploading images ==

How can I upload non-political, non-controversial images that I made myself to Conservapedia? I suppose you or the Conservapedia administration would like to preview images before uploading them? How do I show them for you to preview? [[User:HPadleckas|HPadleckas]] 21:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)

:Send to conservapedia@zoho.com--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:39, 28 February 2011 (EST)

==Celebrity crime==

Hi, Jpatt. I'm wondering how and when we should report (gloat over?) celebrity crime, like a female pop star arrested for being drunk in public, getting a speeding ticket, etc. Are we trying to prove that Hollywood produces (or encourages) self-indulgent behavior, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 2 March 2011 (EST)

:Personally, I don't have a litmus test for inclusion. I simply take celebrities, be it Democrat or Republican, and post their crimes. As role models, they need to be exposed as to why they make headlines. Their behavior is an example of who "not to follow". If you have suggestions, of course I would work with you. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:04, 2 March 2011 (EST)

::I had nothing in mind, just trying to stimulate thought here. Carry on, my good man! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:21, 5 March 2011 (EST)

== Delete ==

Hey Jpatt - I manually copy-pasted move a page from [[Frankfurt school]] to [[Essay:Frankfurt school]] - but upon examining the content it appears that the original author - CharlieO - copy pasted that from another site. Could you delete both pages? Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:57, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

==Photo upload==
Hi, I would like to upload a photo of myself, I don't have the rights, can you do it for me? Thanks.--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 20:35, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Yes, send to conservapedia@zoho.com --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:19, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks. :)--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:23, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I just sent it to you. :) --[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:32, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

:Done. [http://www.conservapedia.com/images/4/42/Me.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:41, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Thank you. :)--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:44, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== I need you to check your email ==

K? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 23:20, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== nice reversions! ==

You're fast, sir.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:50, 2 May 2011 (EDT)
:Did you hear? I'm Quick Draw McGraw!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:54, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for the helpful links and the welcome. I hope to become a valuable member of the community.

== Editing the Wicca page ==

I would like to formally request that the "murders" section be removed for the reasons stated on the talk page.

This is not a place to smear other people or post inflammatory material. {{unsigned|HarabecW}}

:I digress, this is a place to educate others and to warn them to stay clear of witchcraft. Find another topic to edit. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:30, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I have looked at some of the disputed links, and while I don't know enough about the sources themselves to question their reliability, for most of the stories no causal relationship is established between the person's religious beliefs and their actions. One might just as well divide any story about crime between those where the perpetrator was male or female and argue that their gender was the causal factor. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:41, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:::A person's beliefs and their actions are always tied together whether you agree or not. If Wiccans start making the news for rape, I will start a new section. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:10, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Stubs ==

Do we use stub tags here on Conservapedia?-[[User:StevenTramp|StevenTramp]] 23:46, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
:It's not really recommended or necessary.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:35, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Mistake of an email ==

I sent you an email raising a question - having seen the new evidence you can safely ignore it - sorry for that!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

==Ravens==

I noticed you reverted changes made to the Tower of London article that mentioned the legend of the ravens. I know you banned the editor for vandalism, but in this case, the story is true. There is a legend telling that if the ravens at the Tower leave, it portends the downfall of both the Tower and the kingdom. I know it's trivia, but it's fun too and I'd love to see it added back into the article. Here's a link about the story. http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/stories/theravens.aspx [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:32, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Go ahead and add it back.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:38, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks! I'll add the reference too.[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:36, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

== Religion headline ==

Hi - that's a great news story, but I wonder if I may suggest a small change to the wording? At present is says "study came up with similar findings" but no other findings are listed to be similar too; it's an out of context quote.

I'd suggest saying something like "'''[[Religion]] comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings,''' says a 3-year, multi-million Pound survey conducted by Oxford University." Maybe even add that it is a liberal institution, that offered tenure to Richard Dawkins? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:25, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

== Maria Shriver ==

Hi - I noticed you added "Schwarzenegger" for Shriver's last name. I don't believe she ever changed her name legally and has never gone by the name "Schwarzenegger". [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
:Ok, I'll remove it. After her divorce she can go from Mrs. Maria Shriver to Ms. Maria Shriver. New age liberals are a joke. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:19, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

== user:JimMac ==

Hi - this user is vandalising articles and constantly reverting me. Please can you show him the door? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:52, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

==[[Raymond Davis Affair]]==
Do you know anything of this? The Obama administration evidently invoked Islamic law to circumvent the judicial system in Pakistan to obtain a Blackwater (or whatever) operative in Pakistan only weeks before the Abbotobad raid. People in Pakistan are very upset. The democratically elected regime & military are cooperating with the US because they fear Islamic fundementalism, yet when it suits him, Obama pays $2.3 million in blood money under Koranic law to get a hired mercenary out. Ironic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:03, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:I haven't heard this but it wouldn't surprise me.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
::Raymond was CIA--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== user:Jefferson ==

I wasn't sure how to contact you other than this, please let me know if there is another way if you would be so kind. I was not aware of the policy against using fact tags, thank you for informing me. I had seen them used in several articles and assumed it was okay. I would appreciate if you would clear something up for me about the citation policy, please: why is it the responsibility of a person who discovers uncited work to find the citation rather than the original poster of the work? I thought it would have been in the spirit of the encyclopedia's "no gossip" rules that statements should be cited and that calling attention to uncited materials would be helpful in clearing the site of gossip. Thanks again for filling me in and not banning me outright to begin with. I appreciate the help![[User:Jefferson|Jefferson]] 23:25, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:Jefferson, thanks for the mature response. It is the original poster who is supposed to reference. Our suggestion is if you find questionable content, put it on the talk page. If it can be discussed through, then someone can add a citation. If nobody questions the talk page, feel free to delete the questionable content. Unfortunately, this is not spelled out for new users yet. In the scope of ideology, a liberal would find fault with every conservative sentence. So there may be citation requests on other pages but it is not an acceptable form of contribution here. Let me know if I can be of any help. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:47, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps it would be useful to delete the fact tag template all together? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 23:49, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't know why I didn't think of that. For some reason I thought it was built-in to wikimedia but it's a tag, sure it should be deleted. Will discuss with Aschlafly.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== No rules found for editing a new article ==
The rules encourage discussion of intent of substantial edit of established articles, and discourage taking liberties of simply substantially editing those articles with no prior discussion. But, I have been substantially editing articles which I have created, and which no one else has either edited or commented on ('invisible' editors). Should I discuss with 'invisible' editors my intent of substantial edits of articles in regard to which they are 'invisible'?[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:09, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
:The short answer is no. Discussions will be made upon disagreements. Substantial edits to established articles need not require approval either. Though if you are deleting content instead of adding to or replacing a viewpoint, then you will face resistance from other contributors and reverts. Hope that helps. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:17, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

== Uncited Sentences ==
"[[Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help#Completely_Uncited_Article_or_Completely_Uncited_Section_of_an_Article|If a sentence needs to be cited please use the "fact" template at the end of the sentence.]]" I'm only following Conservapedia protocol. -[[User:StudioFire|StudioFire]] 00:14, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

I also suggest that you reread the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]], which include: "''Everything'' you post must be ''true'' and ''verifiable''." as well as "''Do not post personal opinion'' on an encyclopedia entry." There should be a Commandment for Ad hoc reasoning, seeing as how that seems to justify much of the content on this site...[[User:StudioFire|StudioFire]] 00:25, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
:That includes you, StudioFire. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:56, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for the immature response StudioFail which proves the reasoning on the fact tags. We allow content from liberals but if we let them add citation requests- they'll find something wrong with every page.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:08, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

== revision delete ==

What's the point of oversighting vandals if all they do is blank the page?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:29, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:Aesthetics, red links are messy. Just so you know, France won the 100 year war between England and most of their colonial wars in Africa.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:: <nowiki>:D</nowiki> I've a feeling that French military history is going to be something of a meme around my presence. Someone who dislikes France might say France took their time kicking the British out during the 100 years war. Someone who likes France would then refer you to William the Conqueror. Then we'd be told that William the Conqueror doesn't count, because he wasn't French, he was a Normand. Never mind that because of his conquest of England English courts spoke French for 300 years after his death. The whole subject is rather tired to me. I've never been one for Patriotism, either for France or the USA. I know better than to associate myself with the failures and achievements of others just because we share an ethnic group or political boundaries.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dike! ==

What brought on that reversion to a perfectly innocuous edit? --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 21:12, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:Just curious as to your intentions. Carry on great patron saint.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:14, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you for your kind welcome! ==

I appreciate it. =) -Melissa Fox, 2011

== Regarding "Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform" Essay ==

I was surprised at the boldness of this essay. Have you ever read George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''? If not, I'd like to suggest you at least read a comprehensive synopsis of it. It has the very famous line "All animals are equal, but some animals are ''more'' equal than others.", and I couldn't help but feel that your essay had the same viewpoint (except with humans, obviously).

Another quote from the book for you to consider:

{{Cquote|Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?|20px|20px|George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''}}

Perhaps you can see the slight correlation I made between the your essay and ''Animal Farm''. I do not write this in spite, and I have no malicious intentions...I just thought I'd use my First Amendment right to instigate some casual, intelligent conversation. --[[User:LifeHelper|LifeHelper]] 13:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:I did read Animal Farm about 25 years ago. Subconscience-based viewpoint? You are what you fill your mind with but I wrote it due to liberals insistence that Conservapedia be fair. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. To be fair is to give lies equal time. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:59, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::Forgive me for quoting Orwell again;

{{Cquote|If all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.|20px|20px|George Orwell's ''1984''}}

Food for thought! -[[User:LifeHelper|LifeHelper]] 14:27, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

A lie never becomes the truth, only puts on the appearance of truth, clothed in the truth but at heart, still a lie. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:09, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::"A just weight and balance are the LORD's." -- Proverbs, 16:11. [[User:DavidHRG|DavidHRG]] 14:34, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Sure, I believe that. Judgement is for the Lord. "What is desirable in a man is his kindness, and it is better to be a poor man than a liar." --Proverbs 19:22 So we are able to tell what is wrong and what is right, we don't wait for His judgement to tell us.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:57, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== BHO ==

Hi. I was just curious as to why you deleted my edit to the Obama page. Because last time I checked, I could source my claim, and yours just happened to be hear-say conspiracy theory that you're wasting your time with. If you're searching for the truth and not slander why not go with the claim that can be proven like mine? - http://conservapedia.com/User:MAVE182

:Mave182, maybe you didn't read my message to you. Proven claims... kidding right? How do you get proof when the person were talking about hasn't yet disclosed it? Hear-say, conspiracy theory? Here is my message to you, again. '' a few mass visits, black liberation theology, invitation for atheists to join WH Faith-based initiatives, no baptism record and much more secrecy. The refs just don't legitimize Obama's faux Christianity.'' Let me add his disdain for traditional marriage, his support of death to womb children, his constant pandering to the Muslim faith? He's as Christian as much as Stalin was.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Hey my conservative brethren. In case you don't know what proven means, here's how. You say something then back it up with evidence, not free floating hate speech you heard from Glenn Beck. Cite just one of those claims with a source that agrees, and be source i mean something legitimate. As for my claim, here's a few things that back up his Christianity.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36287446/Www-barackobama-com-Factcheck-2007-11-12-Obama-Has-Never
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775757
http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-inauguration.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOOCABMz6jg
You shouldn't deny truth just because it doesn't cater to your narrow minded, slandering viewpoint.
--[[User:MAVE182|MAVE182]] 22:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT) 

Love how you provide ''the drinkers of Obama's bathwater'' as proof. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::Hi JPatt. I gave the guy a day to review the site and its aims. Personally I don't agree with many of the things on Conservapedia but I respect its rules and understand its right to present what information it does. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:10, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:::The truth is non-negotiable, lack of agreement is not an easy thing to digest. As I observe on social media, the right is magnifying each and every flaw in their candidates. Let's hope that our common sense and values overcome the many flaws we all have.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:26, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
::::From our flaws we find perfection.[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 03:09, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Tolaration of more than one religion doesnt make you a bad christian. In fact, I believe if you can't do that, it makes you a very poor Christian. And if you prefer, here's a source that doesn't drink obama's bathwater, but rather chugs the radical right's urine. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/28/obama-christian-choice
As for Max, the entire point of this site is putting up a non-bias viewpoint that is based on fact. Fact is, Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. You may disagree with his politics which is fine, but according to the 1st Ammendment, this man shouldn't be denied the right to practice his religion and shouldn't be slandered as a Christian for unrelated issues. --[[User:MAVE182|MAVE182]] 17:01, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

:I refuse to reply to any future posts of yours on my page. Your sharp tongue speaks all righteous leftist points, a Cafeteria Christian, one that ignores Intrinsic Evil and an apologist for outright sin. What Christian would support the evil that Obama supports? You slander Glenn Beck, you slander Fox News and then you have to gall to call me a slanderer. You can chose to live like the pigs do but you aren't fooling anyone here, you hear?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::It's very simple MAVE and since you came off ''your'' high horse, I guess that does merit a response. I am talking beyond accuracy and beyond statistics. I am talking about absolutes. Who are you MAVE? Let's talk about MAVE, hidden in the shadows, full of knowledge- yet identity unknown, a keyboard diva? To continue to communicate with you would mean I have to match wits with an unknown, convert you into my way of thinking. When I know already that you are passionate, yet deceptive, not intent to learn, only to play games and waste time. Just because I will call out wrong and confront evil, don't try and pass it off as like I'm trying to act as a tough guy. You just make yourself sound thuggish. Jesus rules! Amen. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:19, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== I thought you might enjoy this ==

*[[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]

::Fixed typo [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:01, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

==Book of Tobit==

Hi Jpatt; I was looking for the Conservapedia article on the Book of Tobit; it's a red link in the Bible article. If I read the search results correctly, you deleted it. May I ask why? I'm interested in working on an article about Tobit unless there's a good reason for omitting from Conservapedia. Thanks in advance --[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 19:27, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't recall deleting but it may have been a copied source. Please, recreate how you feel best. Incorporate deleted information if it is valid.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:18, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== John Adams "Notable Quote" Error ==

I just came across the article on John Adams and I found an error. You listed as a notable quote "[The Declaration of Independence] That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." However the accompanying footnote takes you to Gingrich's book, Rediscovering God in America pg 6 at Google books where the quote is attributed to John ''Quincy'' Adams. Im new to Conservapedia so I dont know if I should go ahead and make the edit. I'll just leave it to you. --[[User:JR|JR]] 13:20, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Newbie, nice to meet you. Now that is a good catch and clearly an error on my part. In the future, no harm nor foul to edit pages. Quotes are tough to verify. Sites like Brainyquote will not suffice. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::And just to add on a reason to not trust them: often those sites don't distinguish between a quote by a person, and a quote about that person, so who actually said it is unclear, especially when the quote doesn't have the name in it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:59, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Nice to meet you too. Ive read the edit policy since my post so Im up to speed on what to do now. Thanks! --[[User:JR|JR]] 19:59, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Thank you for moving my new article to one with a proper name. I wasn't sure how to go about it, so thank you. Any tips on how to edit/create articles would help alot, if you have the time of course. --[[User:CAndrs|CAndrs]] 20:10, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== Quadrupling Conservapedia's traffic ==

I have a simple plan which I think could quadruple Conservapedia's web traffic in a short time that will not cost any money. I should find out in a week if I get the cooperation of a couple of key individuals. The only downside of my plan is it doesn't involve the concepts of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]], [[Atheism and obesity|mentioning the obesity with any subcultures]] or referring to [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheism as a worldview for clowns.]] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think my simple plan will be implemented based on some receptive feedback I received. I have to implement some things first. Not sure how fast it will happen though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

== FOIA ==
[[User:FOIA]] has been blocked? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
:Never mind. I see what happened. Good block. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== Singer images ==

I found some replacements from the Wikimedia Commons. They're on the page now. Thanks!!!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 08:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I thank you greatly, Jpatt!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Unblocked ==

Thanks. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 09:06, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for the invite. I decline.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I knew you would decline, but I didn't want to be impolite. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on my page!--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Brewmaster's degree ==

Hi JPatt, I noticed that you added [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Worst_College_Majors&curid=102717&diff=901252&oldid=891798 brewmaster] to the list of "worst college majors." That made me think of a friend of mine who is an actual brewmaster. Would you believe that he can basically live anywhere he wants to, and there will always be a job for him wherever he goes (provided there are breweries nearby)? In whatever economy, anywhere in the world, there's a built-in demand for what he's capable of making. I'd call that a pretty darned good major. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:28, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:LOL, yeah I think i would enjoy being a brewmaster. Doesn't sound too stressful. Anyway, I gained the insight from this months Popular Science magazine Awesome Labs- 25 of the coolest places to pursue science. Anyway, it costs alot of money to go to college. Learning to brew your own beer is done by millions of people without a degree. "Every year, 10 or so student gain careers in small business" - says the brewmaster professor. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:54, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

==Ferrari==
What is up with these guys? I can barely think of a more objective fact than "Ferraris are overpriced." Even Ferrari owners wouldn't argue with me, being overpriced is part of why people buy them so they can show off their money. How do I proceed? --CraigF 3:59 August 16th (ETC)
:Ok, I think they final got my logic. [[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 4:01, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Me personally, I like the Lamborghini. It is however, a bit overpriced as well.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:44, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I like Lambos too, sort of the muscle cars of Italy, but I've still seen them get trounced by American iron too many times to justify their huge price tags. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
==[[Henry Ford]]==
Sorry to bother you again, but I'm having trouble. I tried to remove some slanderous remarks from the Henry Ford page, but people reverted me and demanded references to refute a bunch of propaganda designed to harm Ford's reputation. At the same time they want references to prove an obvious fact that Ferdinand Porsche happily worked with the Nazis. I don't really get it, this is an pro American wiki that is focused on fact not propaganda. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 00:43, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Sorry again, it looks like it was resolved, I guess I was wrong. I guess it is good that I am learning, but I'm going to have to really evaluate my thinking. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 01:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

Pleas block vandal. http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/HankK
:Thank you. --[[User:ZachJ|ZachJ]] 16:49, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:| Liberal wandal terminated. I expect we'll see him again before public school is back in session. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
== Removing facts ==
Ok I admit I was wrong about Henry Ford. History isn't my best subject, but SharonW keeps removing well known facts from my articles and says she can't find references. I found some references and readded what I said, but what if she changes it back, I get the impression she doesn't know that much about cars. I have to go to bed, so don't worry about responding unitl tomorrow. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 02:52, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:I like the pages you are adding. With that said, we take this project seriously. I suggest you let others change your work as they see fit. They'll likely take the edge off your comments but the rest remains, don't take it personal. I'll back you up my friend, just keep adding and let me know any problems that occur. We will work through it together.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:37, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks Jpatt! --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:11, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== RLorian's block ==

Hi, JPatt. RLorian was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&curid=114693&diff=906987&oldid=906984 reverting vandalism]. not really edit-warring. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 13:27, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

==Conservapedia down sometimes==
Hi Jpatt, I've noticed that sometimes Conservapedia goes down while I'm using it. The really weird thing is that this only seems to happen after I make a couple of edits. I took a break from editing for a few days and never had any problems reading articles, but today I started editing again and after a couple of minutes I couldn't open any pages. Am I the victim of cyber attacks?
--[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 21:03, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
:No. IT just happens every so often as far as I can tell.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Wait a minute ==

Doesn't McCain have his favorite American hero story? Why was he swapped out? I mean, keep Reagan, but you should still keep McCain. I don't know that Reagan has a famous military story to tell. --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 15:00, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's a gallery of American heroes, not necessarily war heroes. Reagan led the collapse of the Soviet Union. McCain on the other hand is respected for his service to country during captivity, not actually a leader of hero caliber. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:14, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::My understanding was that the Soviet Union would collapse anyway. Communism cannot sustain itself! --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 16:01, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:::It was going to collapse. Reagan's big military thing only made it worse for them because they had to keep pace.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Reagan gets the credit just like B Hussein Obama can get credit for Bin Laden. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:22, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:The US actually was more intimately involved with the capturing and killing of Bin Laden because our very own men and women did it. Credit to CIA!!! --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:24, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::There is a long list of those that deserve credit, starting with Gen. Petraeus. Obama ultimately gets the nod because as leader, he kept Bush's policies in place to finish what was started. As far as the "gutsy call" the lib media tried to portray-- that's balderdash. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
==Vandalism==
I found some liberal vandalism that [[User:TerryB]] put into the dictionary project. I fixed it, but he probably should be blocked. He used the edit summary "improve" and said that conservatives forbid you to marry who you love, a ridiculous notion. I'm also having problems with other liberals trying to water down a variety of definitions, what can be done? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 01:29, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:There is more than one liberal troll adding nonsense to the dictionary project. I will go through the project today and remove false entries and individuals from Conservapedia deserving of a block. Thanks Craig. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:22, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Great job limiting the amount of vandalism in that recent vandal attack. Of course, Phase III of Conservapedia gaining additional web traffic is totally impervious to CP vandals significantly affecting it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

==Hi==
If Scooby doo is not an acceptable article, then why is [[South Park]]? Your friend Mac. {{unsigned|MacStennis}}

:I don't find any of your contributions to be genuine.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 02:16, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

== Bill Ayers and OWS ==

So you're currently in violation of the first commandment of CP. There is not a single shred of evidence supporting the idea that Ayers said that quote. In fact there's all the evidence saying he didn't. The website linked does not say he said that at all. It doesn't even imply it. Also, if you search that phrase and "bill ayers" there are two hits. The article linked and the article on OWS here. Meanwhile a search for that phrase comes up with literally dozens of articles which don't mention him at all. You're supporting a blatant, unsupported lie by putting it back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 15:18, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

:What a tough guy you are hiding behind that keyboard. I was going to change it when it was first brought to the talk page. Aschlafly reviewed it and made a slight addition. A blatant lie? Do you think he has never said such a thing? Do you think that he has nothing but the best intentions for this country? The only thing wrong I see is your support for Ayers and your lame attempt to make a stink.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Important 7 minute video News Story ==

This was posted to ''[[The Blaze]]'' yesterday: [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/marxist-revolution-beck-shows-oreilly-how-organized-effort-guides-world-wide-occupy-protests/ Glenn Beck on Bill O'Reilly: 'How the Marxist Revolution Plans to De-Threat the Tea Party]. It's a 7 minute video, but I think it's incredibly valuable information that the public should know -- but the [[MSM]] will never report. Beck clarifies everything the public needs to know about [[Occupy Wall Street]]. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:07, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'll give it a look, thanks.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:09, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Departmento Munitorum ==

Thanks for the removal of ordnance discussion earlier. Textbook stuff. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 23:25, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know what you're talking about but please, pull up a chair and let's chat.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:33, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
::I'd love to, but I don' want to be blocked on the 90/10 rule... [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 23:39, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Be bold young man, don't fear the reaper. I am not aware of any CP students falling victim to the 90/10 rule. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:54, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok! What shall we discuss? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 11:27, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rebel Rex fallen prey, we'll chat in a few weeks.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:25, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Privatized military ==

We shouldn't have to pay taxes to the government for the military, it should be private. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:08, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'd just like to comment on this and recommend a reading of the book "Jennifer Government". It's Capitalism and small government taken to an extreme and shows why your idea is not only insane, but very stupid. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:17, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
::I love stupid, get right on it. Nothing good can come from big government and capitalism lifted more people out of poverty than any other system known on earth.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:44, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== Gibberish accounts ==

I blocked all those gibberish accounts sine they are more than likely spammers. I hope that was OK. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:31, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Yep, great job.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:32, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== Block of Pacman ==

I'm uncertain on why Sean has blocked Pacman. Though his username is obviously against CP policy (though it is an excellent game), I took a look at his contributions and they seemed legitimate.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:28, 13 November 2011 (EST)

== Oversight of my talk page? ==

Please don't oversight edits made on my user talk page. Considering that you "only" blocked the user for three months for 90/10, I assume his message wasn't bad enough to justify erasing it from the database. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:57, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:As administrator, I decided on what is best for the project. That kind of advertising isn't tolerated.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:00, 26 November 2011 (EST)
::Oh, so it was just a link to AmeriWiki then? That is what you use ''Oversight'' for? Intriguing. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:02, 26 November 2011 (EST)

User talk:Jpatt

2011-11-26T18:57:09Z

Sid 3050: /* Oversight of my talk page? */ new section

Church of England

2011-11-25T19:55:54Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 940324 by Karajou (talk) Why undo wikilinking?

[[Image:Canterbury.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Canterbury Cathedral]] is the mother church of the Church of England]]
The '''Church of England''' (the mother church of the Anglican Church) is the [[England|English]] national [[church]]. The Church traces its history back to at least the fourth century A.D. It contains High Church elements (similar in ritual to the [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]]), Low Church elements (similar to [[Methodism|Methodists]]), and a Broad Church middle. It is part of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]]. Under King [[Henry VIII]] England broke with Rome and reasserted its independence in questions of [[religion]].

==Reformation==
[[Image:Chester.jpg|thumb|350px|[[Chester]] Cathedral]]
[[Henry VIII]], who reigned 1509-47, broke with the [[Pope]] on two issues, his [[divorce]], and control over the Church inside England, as he declared himself head of the Church in England. Disagreement with Henry on religious issues was a political affront, and he could not tolerate it. Moderate reform took place in the 1530s because Queen Anne and top aides [[Thomas Cranmer]] (1489-1556) and Cromwell had the king's ear and carried out attacks on the old religion. Queen Anne patronized and promoted clergy and bishops of a reforming turn of mind; Cromwell (1485?–1540), the Earl of Essex, was a convinced reformer and in effect the ruthless and unpopular prime minister from 1532 until he fell from favour and was beheaded in 1540. Cranmer (1489–1556) was archbishop of Canterbury after 1533. Henry persecuted those who still held to Papal Supremacy, and encouraged Protestant ideas to flourish. Protestantism was officially established during the short reign of Henry’s son, Edward VI.

After Henry's death in 1547, Cranmer wrote much of the first ''Book of Common Prayer'' (1549, revised 1552), the centerpiece of the Anglican liturgy. The basic summary of Anglican beliefs and practices is the [[Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion]], written by Cranmer and adopted in 1563 under Queen [[Elizabeth I]]. In these foundational documents the supreme authority and sufficiency of scripture for salvation was explicitly stated. In Cranmer's theology, the Holy Spirit inspires the proper understanding of the Bible in the faithful.

This marks the full establishment of the Church of England, largely Protestant in theology but with a hierarchical structure similar to the Roman Catholic establishment, and a largely Catholic liturgy translated from Latin into English. Numerous '''dissenters''' had theological differences, a major factor leading to the [[English Civil War]] of the 17th century.

Like Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches (and unlike most Protestant churches), Anglicans maintain authority within the church through [[Apostolic succession]].

==Victorian era==
===Morality===
The late Victorian social purity movement heralded a new phase in the history of moral regulation, generating significant levels of Anglican and Nonconformist support for male chastity and the elimination of the sexual double standard. Historians have studied the use criminal legislation and censorship to elevate standards of public morality. Morgan (2007) stresses the role of women activists who were prominent campaigners for social purity. Women purity workers exerted enormous pressure on the professional hierarchies of church and chapel, actively reworking Christian readings of the body so as to bring the moral influence of the churches to bear on public opinion. In so doing, they brought about a significant transformation in clerical attitudes that regarded discussions of sex as beyond the boundaries of civilized discourse and led in the promotion of a regulatory, but nonetheless highly public, religious discourse on sexuality. <ref> Sue Morgan, "'Wild Oats or Acorns?' Social Purity, Sexual Politics and the Response of the Late-Victorian Church," ''Journal of Religious History'' 2007 31(2): 151-168 online at [[EBSCO]]</ref>

===High, Low, Broad===
The Church of England struggled to maintain within itself the diametrically opposed tendencies of high-church Anglo-Catholicism and low-church evangelicalism. Even within the broad church movement, disciples of low-church historian and Rugby headmaster Thomas Arnold (1795-1842) and former Unitarian founder of [[Christian Socialism]] Frederick Denison Maurice (1805-72), while overlapping somewhat in their membership, based their comprehensiveness on different theology.<ref> Jeremy Morris, "The Spirit of Comprehension: Examining the Broad Church Synthesis in England," ''Anglican & Episcopal History'' 2006 75(3): 423-443 </ref>

===Ecumenical efforts===
In the late 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries, Anglican priests have participated in several ecumenical events. The [[Eucharist|Lord's supper]] was shared with Scottish [[Presbyterians]] in 1913<ref>http://justus.anglican.org/resources/timeline/15ecumenical.html</ref>. Three bishops of the Church of England converted to the [[Roman Catholic]] church in 2011, and more than a thousand clergy and laity have indicated that they are likely to convert as well.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1821374,00.html</ref>

==Leadership==
[[File:Anglican church.jpg|thumbnail|375px|Anglican Church in [[Australia]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/2152137897/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
The British monarch (currently, Queen [[Elizabeth II]]) is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The monarch also bears the title Defender of the Faith. A 1701 law, still in effect, prevents a Roman Catholic or spouse of a Roman Catholic from becoming king or queen.<ref> See [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208 Text]</ref>

The [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] is the [[Primate]] of the church, head of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]], and an ''ex officio'' member of Britain's House of Lords along with twenty other bishops. Recent moves to appoint Roman Catholic bishops have been disapproved by parliament.

The principal book of worship in Anglican churches is the [[Book of Common Prayer]]. Most churches in England still follow the liturgy set down in it, despite moves to modernize the language - all of which were rejected by the Bishops.
The Church of England is the "established church" of England. At the time of the [[American Revolution]], it was a legal requirement in England that all public officials, including university professors, take an oath to uphold the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. There were no such requirements in the colonies, but the Church of England was established and tax supported in some southern colonies. It was disestablished during the American Revolution. The Church was in disarray during the Revolution, as many leaders returned to England. After the war it slowly rebuilt as the [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]].

Clergy form a three-level hierarchy, with Deacon at the lowest level, then Priest, then Bishop. An Archbishop is the presiding bishop of a province, usually an entire country. Only bishops are able to ordain those below them and also have special authority in other matters. For example, it usually is only a Bishop who conducts the sacramental rite of Confirmation.

===Protestant Experimentalists (group of Anglican modernists)===
In the early 20th century several Anglican priests and scholars showed interest in the new wired and wireless communications technologies such as radio and their possible use in furthering Christianity. Their interests included telepathy, psychic research, psychology, and healing. Such Anglican intellectuals were the Anglican Archbishop Frederick Du Vernet and the Espicopal bible scholar Kirsopp Lake. <ref> [http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/75/3/651 "Radio Mind: Protestant Experimentalists on the Frontiers of Healing"], ''Journal of the American Academy of Religion'' 2007 75(3):651-683</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Chapman, Mark. ''Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Anglicanism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192806939/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231711052&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Hassett, Miranda K. ''Anglican Communion in Crisis: How Episcopal Dissidents and Their African Allies Are Reshaping Anglicanism'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Anglican-Communion-Crisis-Dissidents-Anglicanism/dp/069112518X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231706964&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pawley, Bernard & Margaret Pawley. ''Rome and Canterbury Through Four Centuries: A study of the relations between the church of Rome and the Anglican churches 1530-1973'' (1974)
* Porter, Muriel. ''The New Puritans: The Rise of Fundamentalism in the Anglican Church'' (2007)
* Rosenthal, James. ''The Essential Guide to the Anglican Communion'' (1998)
* Sykes, Stephen, and John Booty, eds. ''The Study of Anglicanism'' (1988), important essays by 31 scholars on all aspects of the Church
===Primary sources===
* Evans, G.R. and Robert Wright, eds. ''The Anglican Tradition: A Handbook of Sources'' (1991), over 600 historical documents

==External links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/anglicana_ecclesia/ Anglicana Ecclesia], primary documents

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:England, Church of}}
[[Category:Anglicans]]
[[category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Protestantism]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Fred Phelps

2011-11-25T19:54:44Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 940323 by Karajou (talk) Was indeed a typo

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Waldron Phelps''' is the [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organization not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behavior. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. This has classified the church as a hate group by various organizations. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the [[Catholic Church]] and [[Episcopal Church]], and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. Phelps is a vehement critic of [[Dick Cheney]]. [http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8194338250744686470&q#] His views are rejected by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut".

Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is represented by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU).<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref>

Phelps has been an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was an enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for president in 1988,<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> calling Gore "the icon of the conservative faction of the Democratic Party."<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., served as a delegate for Gore. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref> In 1992 Phelps supported [[Bill Clinton]] for president and later became critical of President Clinton's pandering for gay voters. Phelps led a demonstration at the 1997 Clinton inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref><ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref>

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against [[homosexuality]] and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the [[Bible]] and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who, in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic priests and church leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

== Phelps and the Democratic party==
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredGoreFiny.jpg|thumb|240px|right|Rev. [[Fred Phelps]] with future Vice President and [[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Al Gore]] at a Westboro Baptist Church event.]]
Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name="ref4">[http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/05/kansas.results/ 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 and 1997,<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref> Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. He supported [[Al Gore]] in the 1988 primaries. Phelp's support of Al Gore took an irrational U-turn in 1998 when he picketed the funeral of Al Gore's father.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13170/pastor-who-takes-pride-in-hate-traces-the-emotion-to-bible</ref> Phelps has been an extremely vocal critic of [[President George W. Bush]] and former Vice President [[Dick Cheney]], calling Bush "A Bible pervert." Of the Cheney family Phelps said, "They know the iniquity they’ve wrought, but they’re not at all ashamed of it...God hates the Cheneys."<ref>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8194338250744686470#</ref>

== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==

In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Saddam Hussein to visit Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref> When Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006, Phelps said Saddam was in hell for practicing the Muslim faith.

== Phelps and activism ==
[[File:1f3.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]
Phelps announced that he and his group would picket the funeral service of actor [[Heath Ledger]].

In February 2009, Phelps' group announced that they would travel to the [[United Kingdom]] to protest in [[Basingstoke]] against a gay-themed play called [[The Laramie Project]], based on the murder of [[Matthew Shepard]].
However, the British Foreign Secretary [[Jacqui Smith]] later announced on February 19th that they would be barred from entering the country as the group "engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities". Phelps' group later responded with a message on their website GodHatesFags.com stating:

:"You British Bastards will not have Jesus Christ to rule over you, and think you can issue bans and pass laws to remove God’s word from the landscape. You do greatly err, not knowing the power of God; and, you do that against your own interests. It is a great kindness to have God’s prophets in your land. But, you ungrateful brutes despise knowledge. It is too late for the UK. God Hates You! God’s wrath and destruction is all that’s left for you, thanks to Secretary Smith."<ref>http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11226.html</ref>

After the shooting of Arizona U.S. Representative Gabriella Giffords and the death of six people in Tuscon, Arizona in January 2010, Phelps stated in a video that God had sent the shooter, Jared Loughner, to "avenge the nation's sins", and that Westboro planned to protest at the funerals of the six victims.<ref name="giffords">[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40997616/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/arizona-suspect-could-face-death-penalty/#.Ts2iIFmwXf8 Arizona suspect could face death penalty] msnbc.com, Crime & Courts, January 11, 2010, retrieved November 23, 2011.</ref> He said, "Thank God for the violent shooter."<ref name="giffords"/> The Arizona state legislature passed an emergency bill barring protestors from within 300 feet of funerals.<ref>[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-11/us/arizona.funeral.westboro_1_kansas-church-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps?_s=PM:US Arizona enacts funeral protest legislation] cnn.com, January 11, 2010, retrieved November 23, 2011.</ref> Westboro later gave up the idea of protesting at the funeral of Christina Green, the 9-year-old girl who died in the shooting, in exchange for airtime on Phoenix and Tuscon radio stations.<ref>[http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/12/westboro-baptist-church-wont-picket-christina-green-funeral/ Westboro Baptist Church Won't Picket Christina Green Funeral] Surge Desk, aolnews.com, January 12, 2011, retrieved on November 23, 2011.</ref>

Despite efforts by [[leftist]]s to link Phelps to the Religious Right, Phelps refers to Christian conservatives as "Lukewarm cowards. Modern day Pharisees. People who have gone a whoring after strange gods. Self-righteous hypocrites. They spend more time harrassing people who are preaching the Gospel than anything else, just like the Pharisees did to Jesus." Phelps preaching has much in common with the Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Phelps also says God hates liberals, referring to them as "the modern day Saduccees", and that they are the ultimate evil.<ref>http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html#Right</ref>

===Lawsuits===

*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father sued for defamation over Phelps' statement: "Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell," during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. A federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against the church; Mr. Snyder won on every count of his complaint, receiving $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.

*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax.

==Criticism of Phelps==
Criticism of Phelps has been virtually universal within both the conservative and liberal movements. The Reverend [[Jerry Falwell]] has called Phelps "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref> Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said "Fred Phelps' curious message is hardly Christian, and only fuels societal bigotry toward those who espouse genuine Biblical views on social issues like homosexuality and abortion," <ref>http://www.eleventh-avenue-south.com/archives/2005/08/fred_phelps_a_p.html</ref>

Phelps was also cited during Canadian deliberations<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121806.html</ref> about declaring anti-gay sentiments to be a hate crime.

==Quotes==
Reasons why people call Phelps “hateful”:

*”Bloody-Knife Bombastic Big Mouth Bastard Beast Obama is going to change times and laws; we have the word of God for that fact. He will do this by his charismatic smooth forked tongue, as he’s highly skilled in the art of telling people what they want to hear. The people of this nation are in terror, at God’s hand, afraid for their future, in distress and crisis, and afraid of many unnamed enemies. Germany was stinging and laboring under financial hardship, including punishing reparations from World War I. Hitler tapped into their national pride and need for financial stability to come to power. Also like Germany, this nation has weak legislative and judicial branches. Hitler was able to quickly seize power and strip the German legislative branch of any ability to curtail him. The Congress of doomed America is full of pandering cowards; they will be putty in Beast Obama’s hands, afraid to oppose him because of the “mandate” he has from the raging masses. The cowardly congress members have no stability or moral compass, so they are subject to the whim of the people. They’ll cave like a cheap deck of cards while Obama cleverly and masterfully plays the people like banjos, to get what he wants.” Phelps on beastobama.com launched in early 2009<ref>[http://www.beastobama.com Beast Obama website</ref>

*”God hates America, and those calamities last Tuesday [September 11, 2001] are none other than the wrath of God, smiting fag America... That wasn't any accident. That wasn't any coincidence. There's only America to blame for those tragedies.”
:“How many do you suppose of those hundred (sic) and thirty soldiers died (sic) in the Pentagon last Tuesday were fags and dykes? And how many do you suppose were working in that massively composed building structure called those two World Trade Center buildings, Twin Towers? There were five thousand or ten thousand killed and, counting all those passengers in those airplanes, it's very likely that every last single one of them was a fag or dyke or a fag enabler, and that the minute he died, he split hell wide open, and the way to analyze the situation is that the Lord God Almighty, pursuant to His threatenings and warnings, killed him, looked him in the face, laughed and mocked at each one of them as He cast each one of them into Hell!... God hates America, and God demonstrated that hatred to some modest degree only last Tuesday -- sent in those bombers, those hellacious 767 Boeing bombers, and it was a glorious sight. What you need to do is see in those flames -- those sickening, twisting, burning, life-destroying flames, brightly shining from every television set around the world! You need to see in those flames a little preview of the flames of Hell that are going to soon engulf you, my friend. Burn your soul forever!” September 14, 2001<ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps on Sept. 11 attacks]</ref>

*”Same-sex marriage, by any name, civil union or otherwise, is the ultimate smashed-mouth in-your-face insult to God Almighty, and you think He's going to let England and America and the rest of this evil world get by with it? God Almighty has not joined fags in holy wedlock. God no longer keeps America safe. America is doomed. We're getting the pants beat off of us, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. God is now America's terrorist, that's who Bush is fighting, that's the terrorist that he best be afraid of. You tweaked His nose, you jackass, you tweaked His nose! God put it in your wicked heart to start that war. That's the message we've got at the funerals of these dead soldiers. God duped you into starting a war, so He could punish you. And any preacher preaching it any other way is a lying hell-bound false prophet. So almost eighteen months now and the siege has got people eating their babies, and their small children, and each other! You're gonna eat your babies! God Himself duped Bush into a no-win war, and He did that by the technique of putting a lying spirit in the mouth of all his trusted advisers, to punish America.” Phelps on April 1, 2007<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000764/ Phelps on war, same-sex marriage, gays]</ref>

*”The Lord sent a world-class whopper of a massacre to Virginia Tech, killing thirty-three, drawing headlines like 'Shocked!', 'Horrified!', 'The worst massacre in US history!'. Well, we wish you were thirty-three thousand killed, but we are thankful to our Father for thirty-three.” Phelps on April 23, 2007<ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps on Virginia Tech massacre]</ref>

*”Canada is a filthy country run by fags, which has Draconian laws making it a crime to preach the Gospel there. All of these cowardly kissy-poo preachers who telecast their milquetoast sermons into Canada have to edit out every single word critical of fags -- snip, snip, snip -- or the fag officials of Canada will arrest and criminally prosecute the Canadian affiliates, and shut down their stations! There's no freedom of speech in Canada. There's no freedom of religion in Canada. It is against the law to read the Bible in Canada.... Our church has had a lot of bad dealings with those demon-possessed Canadians! A big Canadian flag flies at our church upside-down, the international symbol of distress. We fly it day and night, to educate and warn people about the fagi-nazi regime just to the north of us. Canadians are afraid of their tyrannical fag-run government. You can determine for yourself about Canada, and keep as far away from them as you can.” Phelps on July 31, 2008<ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps on Canada]</ref>

*”We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message...The same majoritarian sodomite tyranny that now guides the Clinton administration's repressive policies toward Gospel preaching on America's streets, is apparently responsible — at least in part — for the merciless slaughter by starvation of 400 innocent Iraqi babies each day in your country. If our government and laws will allow it, and at the invitation of your government, we would like to send a delegation from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, to preach the Gospel on the streets of Baghdad for one week in the near future.” Phelps’ November 30, 1997 letter to Saddam Hussein.<ref>[http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/print.asp Phelps’ letter to Saddam Hussein]</ref>

*”In our experience, no modern country is more repressive of human rights than the U.S.A. The vaunted First Amendment is nothing but empty words on paper...we will journey to China at our expense, and tell our story of modern American repression of human rights, upon invitation.” Fred Phelps, demanding permission to picket in the People's Republic of China, February 26, 1997.<ref>[http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/print.asp Phelps on China, U.S.A. and human rights]</ref>

*”Mr. Rogers gave aid and comfort to homosexuals. He was a man who preached tolerance of all sorts of people in ways that directly contradicted the Bible. His syrupy teachings led millions astray. He was a wuss and he was an enabler of wusses.” Phelps on March 2003.<ref>[http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030307tony107col2p2.asp Phelps on Mr. Rogers]</ref>

*”You are a Bible pervert, [President George W.] Bush! And I knew it, the minute you hired that fag Scott Evertz to run your White House and told Rumsfeld to hire that fag [Stephen] Herbits, to screen all the applicants for employment to the Pentagon.” Phelps on September 14, 2001 <ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps’ tirade toward President Bush]</ref>.

*”Whatever righteous cause the Jewish victims of the 1930s-40s Nazi Holocaust had, (probably miniscule, compared to the Jewish Holocausts against Middle Passage Blacks, African Americans and Christians -- including the bloody persecution of Westboro Baptist Church by Topeka Jews in the 1990s), has been drowned in sodomite semen. American taxpayers are financing this unholy monument to Jewish mendacity and greed and to filthy fag lust…Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany…just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A. … The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke…And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them…Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda…The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law.” WBC news release, December 26, 1996<ref>[http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/WBC-on-Jews.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=WBC Phelps on Jewish people]</ref>

*Fred Phelps believes that [[Barack Obama]] is the Antichrist. According to Phelps, we are living in the end of days and Obama will form an Unholy Trinity with the [[Catholic Church]] and [[Satan]].<ref>[http://www.beastobama.com/unholytrinity/index.html Phelps on the Antichrist and Unholy Trinity]</ref>

== Outside links ==
*[http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU The Most Hated Family In America]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8194338250744686470# Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8682089528957352638&ei=YB-PSa6HCYbi2gKtgPnCCw&q=fred+phelps+jerry+falwell&hl=en Phelps denouncing] [[Jerry Falwell]] after his death.

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

[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Democrats]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}

Lutherans For Life

2011-11-24T13:52:00Z

Sid 3050: Undo James (see my user talk page): Consensus exists. This will be my last revert in this matter.

'''Lutherans For Life''' is a [[pro-life]] organization.

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

[[Category:Pro-life]]
[[Category:Christian Organizations]]
[[Category:Abortion]]

Talk:Lutherans For Life

2011-11-24T13:25:44Z

Sid 3050: /* Copy-paste job */

== Copy-paste job ==

No wonder this encyclopedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lutherans_For_Life&oldid=939921 article] reads like an ad - it's stitched together from the [http://www.lutheransforlife.org/about/who-are-lutherans-for-life/ "Who Are Lutherans For Life?"] page:
*CP: Lutherans For Life "Trust God! Choose Life!" is a nationwide Pro-life network of state federations, chapters, Life Advocates, and Life Ministry Coordinators.
*Source: Lutherans For Life has a nation-wide network of state federations, chapters, Life Advocates, and Life Ministry Coordinators.
*CP: Their mission is to equip Lutherans to be Gospel-motivated voices for life.
*Source: Our Mission: Equipping Lutherans to be Gospel-motivated voices For Life.
*CP: Lutherans For Life believes that every human life—from conception to natural death regardless of physical or mental challenges or condition of dependence—is precious in God’s sight.
*Source: Lutherans For Life believes that every human life—from conception to natural death regardless of physical or mental challenges or condition of dependence—is precious in God’s sight.
*CP: They wish to change hearts and minds through the Word of God to end abortion.
*Source: Lutherans For Life seeks to change hearts and minds through the Word of God, trusting that changed people will seek to change laws.
*CP: Lutherans For Life members serve as volunteers in caring pregnancy centers, facilitate educational programs, aid hospice, and give witness to chastity before marriage and faithfulness in marriage.
*Source: Lutherans For Life members serve as volunteers in caring pregnancy centers, facilitate educational programs, aid hospice, and give witness to chastity before marriage and faithfulness in marriage.
*CP: Also, they free quarterly journal caled LifeDate.
*Source: LifeDate, our free quarterly journal
As a fun note, the last sentence actually tries to change the wording, but in doing so forgets a verb and contains a typo.

Seriously speaking, this is pretty bad, and the article should be deleted for being an obvious ad and for being a straight-up copy-paste job. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:15, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:I don't think Lutherans For Life will mind.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:31, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::That's cute, but you're still violating the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]]: "Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work." Note the complete lack of "unless you think they won't mind".
::The [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|guidelines]] offer you a small chance of salvaging this mess: "You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission. This must also be noted on the article or talk page, and the original author should also note, for example on his user page on the original site, that he has provided such permission." Until they give this permission in some place where it can be verified, I'm replacing the copyvio with a stub. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:24, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Lutherans For Life

2011-11-24T13:24:43Z

Sid 3050: Replacing with stub until copyright issues are sorted out. See talk.

Talk:Lutherans For Life

2011-11-24T13:24:10Z

Sid 3050: /* Copy-paste job */ Read the Commandments recently?

== Copy-paste job ==

No wonder this encyclopedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lutherans_For_Life&oldid=939921 article] reads like an ad - it's stitched together from the [http://www.lutheransforlife.org/about/who-are-lutherans-for-life/ "Who Are Lutherans For Life?"] page:
*CP: Lutherans For Life "Trust God! Choose Life!" is a nationwide Pro-life network of state federations, chapters, Life Advocates, and Life Ministry Coordinators.
*Source: Lutherans For Life has a nation-wide network of state federations, chapters, Life Advocates, and Life Ministry Coordinators.
*CP: Their mission is to equip Lutherans to be Gospel-motivated voices for life.
*Source: Our Mission: Equipping Lutherans to be Gospel-motivated voices For Life.
*CP: Lutherans For Life believes that every human life—from conception to natural death regardless of physical or mental challenges or condition of dependence—is precious in God’s sight.
*Source: Lutherans For Life believes that every human life—from conception to natural death regardless of physical or mental challenges or condition of dependence—is precious in God’s sight.
*CP: They wish to change hearts and minds through the Word of God to end abortion.
*Source: Lutherans For Life seeks to change hearts and minds through the Word of God, trusting that changed people will seek to change laws.
*CP: Lutherans For Life members serve as volunteers in caring pregnancy centers, facilitate educational programs, aid hospice, and give witness to chastity before marriage and faithfulness in marriage.
*Source: Lutherans For Life members serve as volunteers in caring pregnancy centers, facilitate educational programs, aid hospice, and give witness to chastity before marriage and faithfulness in marriage.
*CP: Also, they free quarterly journal caled LifeDate.
*Source: LifeDate, our free quarterly journal
As a fun note, the last sentence actually tries to change the wording, but in doing so forgets a verb and contains a typo.

Seriously speaking, this is pretty bad, and the article should be deleted for being an obvious ad and for being a straight-up copy-paste job. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:15, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:I don't think Lutherans For Life will mind.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:31, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::That's cute, but you're still violating the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]]: "Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work." Note the complete lack of "unless you think they wont mind".
::The [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|guidelines]] offer you a small chance of salvaging this mess: "You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission. This must also be noted on the article or talk page, and the original author should also note, for example on his user page on the original site, that he has provided such permission." Until they give this permission in some place where it can be verified, I'm replacing the copyvio with a stub. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:24, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Lutherans For Life

2011-11-24T02:15:13Z

Sid 3050: Copy-paste job

Charity

2011-11-23T13:38:38Z

Sid 3050: Merging references as per request

[[Image:Bouguereau Charity.jpg|thumb|Charity / [[Adolphe William Bouguereau|Bouguereau]]]]
'''Charity''' has several meanings, from the commonly used and understood, to the abstract and technical:

*''Charity'', as used most commonly, refers to generosity, especially the giving of time or resources without the expectation of Earthly reward. The noun refers to an institution that engages in such behavior. <ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity</ref>

*''Charity'': as a [[Christian]] [[virtue]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm</ref> This is enumerated among the Divine virtues by St. [[Paul]] in 1 Corinthians 13:13. It is the greatest of the three, included with [[hope]] and [[faith]]. In this sense, charity refers to a divinely infused love, unlimited and directed toward Man and toward [[God]].

*''Charity'' is also one of the fruits of the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them.
 

==Charity and Religion==

Charity is important to most religions, and is practiced by both religious and secular people and organizations.

*[[Christianity]]: the Catholic theologic sense is mentioned above. Most Christian faiths require practitioners to give of themselves as they are able, following the command of [[Jesus]] in [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] 6:30 ([[KJV]]): "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again." Also, [[the parable of the sheep and the goats]] in [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 25:31-46<ref>Matthew 25:31-46 (KJV) [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat025.html#31]</ref> shows the necessity of charity to [[salvation]]. Many Christian denominations ask for a [[tithe]], or one-tenth of the income, to go to the church, a portion of which is then given to charity outside of the church. No specific figure is given for how much to give outside of the church body.
*[[Islam]]: charity ('زكاة', 'zakat', in Arabic) is one of the [[Five Pillars]] of the religion. A tithe of money (normally 10%) is given to help the poorest in society.
*[[Judaism]]: Judaism uses the concept of ''tzedakah'', or ''righteousness''. The theology behind this is quite layered and complex.

In both the Christian and Islamic faiths, charity is not considered righteous if done to enhance the giver's reputation. Thus private and discreet charity is prompted by love not status.
:''Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.'' [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 6:1 (Christian Scripture from the [[Bible]])
:''If you give alms openly, it is well; but if you do it secretly and give to the poor, that is better.'' [[Koran|Qur-an]] 2:271a (Islamic Scripture)

For [[libertarians]], charity is the choice of the individual, as any societal intervention must be voluntary, and based on the decision of the individual. It goes against libertarian belief to tax people involuntarily and redistribute wealth as "charity".<ref>''Ask Dr. Ruwart: Libertarians and Taxation" [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?s_keyword=charity&id=226]</ref>

====United States cities with the highest volunteer participation in religious venues====

* [[Salt Lake City]] 21.8%
* [[Charlotte]] 15.9%
* [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul (City)|St. Paul]] 14.6%
* [[Omaha]] 14.6%
* [[Nashville]], 14.5%
* [[Louisville]] 14.5%
* [[Tulsa]] 13.6%
* [[Kansas City]] 12.9%
* [[Dallas]] 12.2%
* [[Oklahoma City]] 11.9%<ref>''[[Christianity Today]]'', Sept. 2007, Pg. 19</ref>

====Americans have a long tradition of charitable giving and volunteerism====

The United States is “a land of charity,” says Arthur Brooks, an expert on philanthropy and a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, who sees charitable giving and volunteerism as the signal characteristic of Americans. Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions. The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO.<ref>http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html</ref>

Higher faith-based giving in the US explains 60% of the difference in proportion of GDP given to charity in the US and the UK. Religion giving accounts for a third of US charity donations, compared to 13% in the UK. <ref name="InternationalComparisons">[https://www.cafonline.org/publications/archive/international-giving.aspx International Comparisons of Charitable Giving (November 2006) Briefing Paper, Charities Aid Foundation] </ref>.

==Levels of giving per country==

The following is a table of national giving levels as a percentage of GDP.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Level of Giving as % of GDP
|-
| [[USA]]
| 1.67
|-
| [[UK]]
| 0.73
|-
| [[Canada]]
| 0.72
|-
| [[Australia]]
| 0.69
|-
| [[South Africa]]
| 0.64
|-
| [[Republic of Ireland]]
| 0.47
|-
| [[Netherlands]]
| 0.45
|-
| [[Singapore]]
| 0.29
|-
| [[New Zealand]]
| 0.29
|-
| [[Turkey]]
| 0.23
|-
| [[Germany]]
| 0.22
|-
| [[France]]
| 0.14
|}

The UK is especially proactive with donating to overseas charities, compromising 13% of total giving. In contrast, only 3% of US contributions goes to international

The lower levels of giving in some European countries reflects an expectation that social services should be provided through [[socialist]] state institutions. There is also an general inverse relationship between the rate of income tax and the level of giving. <ref name="InternationalComparisons"/>.

== See also ==

*[[Altruism]]
*[[Greed]]
*[[Capitalism]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Virtues]]
[[category:economics]]

{{Conservatism}}

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2011-11-23T01:32:39Z

Sid 3050: /* Britain, atheism and the World Cup */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2011-11-22T23:13:34Z

Sid 3050: /* Earthquakes */ new section

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2011-11-22T23:08:15Z

Sid 3050: /* Britain, atheism and the World Cup */ new section

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2011-11-22T22:41:51Z

Sid 3050: /* Newt Gingrich */ new section

Gayle Ruzicka

2011-11-22T13:41:32Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 939430 by LongGoneTK (talk)

'''Gayle Ruzicka''' (born 1943 in Nampa, Idaho) is a prominent member of the [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] and strong opponent of [[same-sex marriage]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ruzicka, Gayle}}
[[Category:LDS Church]]

Hans Kung

2011-11-22T13:41:29Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 939429 by LongGoneTK (talk)

'''Hans Küng''' is a Swiss-born [[liberal]] theologian who served as an adviser to Pope John XXIII during [[Vatican II]]. The Catholic Church took away his license to teach Catholic theology in 1979 based on a book he wrote in 1971 that questioned papal infallibility, a disciplining that made him a cause celebre among American and European liberals.

As of 2010 he is at Tübingen. In October 2009 he obtained some publicity by criticizing Pope Benedict XVI's welcoming of conservative Anglicans as "angling in the waters of the extreme religious right."

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kung, Hans}}
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Juan Carlos

2011-11-22T13:41:25Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 939428 by LongGoneTK (talk)

'''Juan Carlos de Bourbon y Bourbon''' is the current king of [[Spain]]. He took the crown at the end of the [[Franco]] era, and was instrumental in guiding the country safely towards [[democracy]] during a potentially volatile period. Because of this achievement, he commands respect among the majority of Spaniards, although the future of the country's [[monarchy]] after his death is not assured.

Juan Carlos' role in the government of Spain is mainly symbolic, in a similar way to the monarchy of the [[United Kingdom]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Carlos, Juan}}
[[Category:Monarchs]]
[[Category:Spanish People]]

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2011-11-22T13:41:24Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 939427 by LongGoneTK (talk)

While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:

==Political==
#''[[Frost/Nixon]]'' - A liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].
#''W'' - A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.
#''Fahrenheit 9/11'' - A Michael Moore movie, which distorts the tangential link between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.
#''The Motorcycle Diaries'' - A fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]].
#''The Contender'' - Political movie turned into pro-[[Al Gore]] propaganda by liberal studio executives and [[Hollywood values]].
#''V for Vendetta'' - Blatantly glorifies [[anarchism]], [[socialism]], [[communism]] and [[homosexuality]].
#''Dead Man Walking'' - A senseless criticism of capital punishment, with an ending that left some liberal viewers even more confused.

==Social==
#''Dazed and Confused'' - Promotes promiscuity and drug abuse.
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung.
#''Pineapple Express'' - Shows drug abuse to be "cool".
#''Natural Born Killers'' - Riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.
#''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' - Showing that [[liberals]] will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.
#''Boogie Nights'' - Made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.
#''The Social Network'' - Glorifies the gossip website [[Facebook]], which feeds narcissism and destroys marriages. Also portrays drug use and misogyny in a positive light.
#''The Day After Tomorrow'' - Overdramatic, nonsensical portrayal of the consequences of fictional [[climate change]].
#''The People vs. Larry Flynt'' - Idealizes [[pornography]] mogul [[Larry Flynt]] and argues that pornography is protected by the [[First Amendment]].
#''But I'm a Cheerleader'' - Portrays [[homosexuality]] as a legitimate lifestyle, attacks and ridicules [[reparative therapy]] and religious people.
#''Orgazmo'' - Portrays the porn industry in a positive light, mocks Mormons and the religiously devout.

==Schlockumentary==
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]].
# ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' - [[Al Gore]]'s [[global warming]] alarmist [[schlockumentary]].
# ''Super Size Me'' - Blames obesity on great capitalist paragons like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].
# ''[[Religulous]]'' - "Comedian" Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.
#''[[Jesus Camp]]'' - Baselessly attacks Conservative Christianity; incited liberal vandalism of the Bible camp shown in the film.

==Religious==
#''Dogma'' - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.
#''The Golden Compass'' - based on the atheistic ''His Dark Materials'' series.

please add more!
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Cinema]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

User talk:Toadaron

2011-11-22T13:41:12Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 939423 by LongGoneTK (talk)

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:25, 5 February 2011 (EST)}}

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations, your account has SkipCatcha and blocking privileges now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 16 November 2011 (EST)

User talk:DavidE

2011-11-22T13:40:28Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 939420 by LongGoneTK (talk)

User:DavidE

2011-11-22T13:40:27Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 939419 by LongGoneTK (talk)

{{userboxtop|DavidE}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User Law}}
{{User Vandalized|15}}
{{userboxbottom}}
KJV, YEC, GOP, and not at all PC! I believe in what the Bible says, not in what some liberal "pastor" feels that the Bible should say. I also believe in the entire Bible; I am not the sort of Christian who believes just in those parts of the Bible that he likes, and only when they suit him. I do not believe that those parts of the Bible that inconvenience me are to be explained away, while those parts of the Bible that apply only to someone else are to be retained, and I am suspicious of any form of Bible interpretation that the homosexuals could turn around and use to justify their lifestyle choice.

One thing that I like about Conservapedia, and one reason why I think that it is so important, is that edits relying on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture aren't constantly reverted in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" or discounted as "vandalism," as they are on certain liberal sites that I could name.

Please don't lump all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians into a single "Protestant" mass. As an Independent Fundamental Baptist, I hold views very different from those of Episcopalians and other mainline Protestants. Before telling me what I do or do not believe, please take the time to find out.

April 11, 2011, was my fourth anniversary of editing Conservapedia.

Liberal vandals have repeatedly vandalized both my user page and my talk page. I wonder why they bother, since liberal trolls, vandals, and parodists are always found out so quickly here.

[[Category:Baptist Conservapedians]]

Homosexuality and tolerance

2011-08-18T22:19:14Z

Sid 3050: It's important to see the difference between what some blogger claimed and what you state as encyclopedic fact.

Laura Wood of the blog "The Thinking Housewife" wrote: "No people on the face of the planet are more intolerant or filled with hatred for those who disagree with them than homosexual activists and their fellow travelers. They are bullies. They feel entitled to be bullies."<ref>[http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/08/australian-columnist-encounters-homosexual-bullies/ "Australian Columnist Encounters Homosexual Bullies"]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

George W. Bush

2011-08-10T00:26:47Z

Sid 3050:

{{Officeholder
|name=George W. Bush
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|party=Republican
|spouse=Laura Bush
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=43rd
|terms=January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
|vp=[[Dick Cheney]]
|preceded=[[Bill Clinton]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Barack Obama]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=46th
|state=Texas
|terms=January 17, 1995 – December 21, 2000
|preceded=[[Ann Richards]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Rick Perry]]
}}
}}
'''George Walker Bush''' (born New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1995-2000) and served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] from 2001 to 2009. Campaigning on a theme of "compassionate conservatism" and promising "to restore honor and dignity" to the office of President after the Clinton years,<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E3DC153FF931A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE TEXAS GOVERNOR; Bush Calls on Gore to Denounce Clinton Affair,] By Frank Bruni, The New York Times'', August 12, 2000. </ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] when liberal Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 Presidential election]] Bush won re-election, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000.<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> [[Leftist]] Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] conceded defeat the day after the election.

Bush's presidency was defined by [[foreign policy]] because of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], which eventually resulted in the liberation of the countries of [[Iraq]] and [[Afghanistan]]. Bush named two conservatives to the Supreme Court. He reformed K12 education with a major new program, [[No Child Left Behind]], and pushed a series of major tax cuts through Congress. Conservatives cheered. All this happened in his first term, aiding his easy reelection. His performance in dealing with [[Hurricane Katrina]] in 2005 were widely ridiculed, though some Republicans argued that local Democrats did an even worse job.

As the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] smashed into the banking system and the nation plunged into the [[Recession of 2008]], Bush responded by proposing a massive aid program of $700 billion to banks, and loan guarantees amounting to the trillions of dollars. Conservatives were dismayed as he proposed a traditional [[Keynesian]] [[stimulus]] which Democrats lauded. Above all, he made one of the most dramatic federal interventions in American history by his aid to the financial system. Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist, says, "Bush clearly is not a Reaganite or "small 'c' conservative."

Conservatives and [[libertarian]]s have criticized Bush for greatly increased domestic spending, creating a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failing to veto a single bill, and expanding both the size and scope of government. The man made extremely difficult decisions under extraordinary circumstances. Unlike any president before him, he was subjected to an all out attack by liberal aligned groups intent on playing politics, while forcing him to admit defeat in Iraq. Bush's last year in office was a combination of Democrat [[Alinsky]] tactics and abandonment by his own Republican party. Lobbyists and Congress contributed greatly to the collapsing financial markets. Mistakes, questionable interests, Federal Reserve lack of transparency, Liberal Media, Unions, Homeland Security and you understand why the Bush team was to falter, they were in over their heads. Bush is a man with convictions that didn't cower from protecting America and putting America first. <ref>See www.honorfreedom.com</ref> George would engineer two government rebate checks, giving back to the people. Average unemployment over eight-years of the [[Bush Administration]] was 5.3%. <ref>[http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/unemployment-rate-during-president-bush/ Scottstanzel.com, Unemployment During President George W. Bush’s Two Terms]</ref> and he can be credited for having the most [[pro-life]] policies of any president.

==Early Life==
[[Image:Bushfamily.JPG|left|thumb|275px|George W. Bush and his family in 1981]] George W. Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, [[Connecticut]], and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html</ref> He earned a BA in history from [[Yale University]] and attended [[Harvard]] Business School as well. He later served in the Texas Air [[National Guard]]. Bush grew up around politics, as his father [[George H. W. Bush]] had been a member of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], American Ambassador to the [[United Nations]], Director of the [[Central Intelligence Agency]](CIA) and [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]]. In 1988, George W. Bush worked for his father's successful presidential campaign. Afterward Bush purchased the Texas Rangers [[baseball]] franchise.

==Governor of Texas==
Bush declared his candidacy for Governor of Texas in 1994. He defeated incumbent [[Democrat]] Governor [[Ann Richards]] 53.5 percent to 45.9 percent. Bush advocated and signed the two largest tax cuts to date in Texas history, totaling over $3 billion. <ref>http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40078/tsl-40078.html</ref> He supported and signed legislation emphasizing local control of [[school]]s, higher standards, and a revised curriculum. Bush was easily reelected Governor in 1998.

==2000 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2000]]''

The Republican nominee for the 2000 Presidential nomination came down to Texas Governor George W. Bush and [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], a maverick Republican and ex-POW. Most social conservatives endorsed Bush. Despite early primary wins in [[New Hampshire]] and [[Michigan]] for McCain, Bush eventually won after sweeping 9 out of the 13 states on super Tuesday. McCain withdrew in March after a bitter primary fight. Bush then chose former U.S. Defense Secretary [[Richard Cheney]] as his running mate. Vice President [[Al Gore]] was the Democrat nominee. Consumer Advocate [[Ralph Nader]], a strong supporter of [[environment]]al protection and critic of large corporations entered the race in the [[green party]].

In a historically close race, Gore edged out Bush in the popular vote 48.4 percent to 47.9 percent. However, Bush won the majority of electoral votes, 271 to 266, because of Bush's victory in Florida, winning its 25 electoral votes that both candidates desperately needed. The race in Florida was so close that state law required a recount of the ballots. There were, however, thousands of thrown out ballots that were discredited because the counting machines could not discern them. After the machine recounts still showed Bush ahead, Gore asked for a hand recount of ballots in counties that favored Democrats. On November 26th, Florida officials certified that Bush won the state of Florida by 537 votes. Gore conceded December 13th.

==2004 Reelection Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2004]]''

In President Bush's reelection campaign in 2004, national security, the invasion of Iraq and social issues dominated the campaign. The Democrat nominee was [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[John Kerry]]. Bush won the popular vote, 51% to 48%. With 120 million Americans voting (15 million more then in 2000) Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. Among the swing states, Kerry took [[Pennsylvania]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Michigan]], [[Minnesota]], [[Wisconsin]] and [[Oregon]], while Bush took [[Ohio]], [[Florida]], [[Missouri]], [[Iowa]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Nevada]]. <ref>http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html</ref>

Republicans also picked up seats in both chambers of [[Congress]].

==Presidency (2001-2009)==

In foreign and security areas, his terms included the 9-11 terrorist attack, the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present), the expansion of NATO to the Russian border, financial aid to fight disease (especially AIDS) in Africa, and improved relations with India. The Iraq was was the focus of intense partisan debate.

The 2002 midterm election saw a GOP gain of seats in the House of Representatives and governorships, However the 2006 elections showed sharp GOP losses across the board, and loss of control of the House for the first time since its capture in 1994. He played a minor role in the 2008 election, which the GOP lost.

In domestic legislation he partnered with Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]] to pass the No Child Left Behind education act, and tried--but failed--to pass immigration reform. Early on he secured large-scale tax cuts, which helped the economic recovery in 2002. The boom (and later collapse) in real estate boosted the economy then pulled it down. Liberals criticized his handling of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina relief, and the dismissals of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. His proposed "Vision for Space Exploration" went nowhere, and he failed to make headway in Social Security reform. Conservatives hailed his appointments of conservatives to the Supreme Court and Federal Reserve chairmanship.

===Administration and Cabinet===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| George W. Bush
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]]
| [[Richard Cheney]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Colin Powell]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Condoleezza Rice]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Paul O'Neill]]
| 2001-2002
|-
|
| [[John W. Snow]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Henry Paulson]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Donald Rumsfeld]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Robert Gates]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John Ashcroft]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Alberto Gonzales]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Michael Mukasey]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of the Interior
| [[Gale Norton]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Dirk Kempthorne]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Agriculture
| [[Ann Veneman]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Mike Johanns]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Ed Schafer]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Commerce
| [[Donald Evans]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Carlos Gutierrez]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Labor
| [[Elaine Chao]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| Secretary of Health and Human Services
| [[Tommy Thompson]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Education
| [[Rod Paige]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Margaret Spellings]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
| [[Mel Martinez]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Alphonso Jackson]]
| 2003-2008
|-
|
| [[Steve Preston]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Transportation
| [[Norman Mineta]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Mary Peters]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Energy
| [[Spencer Abraham]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Samuel Bodman]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Veterans Affairs
| [[Anthony Principi]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Jim Nicholson]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[James Peake]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of Homeland Security
| [[Tom Ridge]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Chertoff]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Chief of Staff
| [[Andrew Card]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Joshua Bolten]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
| [[Christine Todd Whitman]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Stephen Johnson]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of Management and Budget
| [[Mitch Daniels]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| Joshua Bolten
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Rob Portman]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Jim Nussle]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
| [[John Walters]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| United States Trade Representative
| [[Robert Zoellick]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Rob Portman
| 2005-2006
|-
|
| Susan Schwab
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[CIA]] Director
| [[George Tenet]]
| 2001-2004
|-
|
| [[John E. McLaughlin]]
| 2004
|-
|
| [[Porter J. Goss]]
| 2004-2006
|-
|
| [[Michael Hayden]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| FBI Director
| [[Louis Freeh]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Thomas J. Pickard]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Robert S. Mueller]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| National Security Advisor
| Condoleezza Rice
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Stephen Hadley
| 2005-2009
|-
| White House Counsel
| Alberto R. Gonzales
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Harriet Miers]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Fred Fielding]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| White House Press Secretary
| [[Ari Fleischer]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Scott McClellan]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Tony Snow]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Dana Perino]]
| 2007-2009
|-
|}

===Response to the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks===
The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks resulted in George W. Bush becoming a self-described war time President. On that morning President Bush had traveled to Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, [[Florida]] to promote his [[education]]al agenda, when 19 Islamic terrorists connected with [[al-Qaeda]] hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two of them crashed into the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]], the third in [[The Pentagon]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] and the fourth in Somerset County, [[Pennsylvania]], after passengers of the flight successfully stopped the hijackers from hitting Washington D.C., possibly the [[White House]] or [[Capital]]. As a resulted over 3,000 Americans were killed, and over 6,000 injured, the largest terrorist attack in American history. After [[White House]] Chief of Staff [[Andrew Card]] had whispered in the President's ear that the United States was under attack, President Bush addressed the public in the Booker school's media center, saying a brief four paragraph statement that "Terrorism against our nation will not stand. This will not stand." Which was a formation that President George H. W. Bush used in August 1990 after [[Iraq]] invaded [[Kuwait]]. President Bush would later say that "This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. . . . I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, talk with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager. ]] Although the attacks may have been an attempt from al-Qaeda to divide the United States, they were unsuccessful. Across the nation Americans had donated blood and raised money for reconstruction in New York City. Within weeks Americans had raised over one billion dollars. <ref>The American Vision from National Geographic, pg. 1033 </ref> On September 14th President Bush declared a national emergency. [[CIA]] Director [[George Tenent]] and the FBI identified the attacks from al-Qaeda and [[Osama Bin Laden]] in [[Afghanistan]]. As [[Secretary of State]] [[Colin Powell]] began to build an international coalition with over 90 countries to support the United States global [[War on Terrorism]], [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] began to redeploy troops and aircraft's to the [[middle east]]. On September 24th, President Bush issued an executive order freezing all funding to financial assets to individuals and groups suspected of terrorism, and over 80 other nations soon followed. Bush then established the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate federal agencies working to prevent terrorism. The President appointed [[Pennsylvania]] [[Governor]] [[Tom Ridge]] to the office. In October President Bush signed into law the U.S. [[Patriot Act]], which allowed authorities to obtain a signal nationwide search warrant that could be used anywhere on suspected terrorists. It also made it easier to wiretap terrorists and track their [[email]]. The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks—[[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]] has been captured.

On October 5th, a new [[anthrax]] scare from terrorists began. Anthrax—a deadly bacteria—had been sent in the mail to news organizations in New York City and Washington, D.C. and [[United States Senate|Senate]] Majority Leader [[Tom Daschle]]'s office. The FBI investigated the anthrax attacks, although no suspects were identified.

===War in Afghanistan===
(see [[Afghanistan War]])
Afghanistan housed and protected al-Qaeda as it planned the 9-11 attacks. It then refused to turn over al-Qaeda leaders. With UN and NATO approval, Bush went to war to overthrow the Taliban. On October 7th, 2001, he ordered bombing of al-Qaeda's camps and the [[Taliban]]'s military forces in Afghanistan. "We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail, freedom will prevail", President Bush explained. The attack quickly shattered the [[Taliban]]'s defenses, and by early December the Taliban regime had collapsed. The United States, its allies and the UN then helped Afghanistan create a new government under [[ Hamid Karzai]]. By March 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda were beginning to regroup again in the mountain's of the [[Pakistan]] border. President Bush responded by launching Operation Anaconda, where al-Qaeda troops were defeated. Al-Qaeda was largely destroyed, but the Taliban rebuilt using secure sanctuaries in Pakistan from which it launched terror attacks inside Afghanistan (and inside Pakistan as well)..<ref> Fred Barnes, ''Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2006); Seth Jones, ''In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan'' (2009)</ref>

As a candidate in 2008 Obama criticized Bush for neglecting the Afghanistan, and tripled the number of American troops from 31,000 when Bush left office to over 100,000 in early 2010

===2002 Mid-Term Elections===

Democrats wanted the focus of the 2002 mid term elections to be on the [[economy]], which was growing slowly after the September 11th terrorist attacks. However, because Congress voted to authorized military force in Iraq in mid-October, national security was the top issue. Republicans increased their majority in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and took back control of the [[United States Senate]].

===2002-2003 build up of the War in Iraq===
In his infamous January 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush declared an "Axis of Evil" made up of [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[North Korea]], countries that posed a grave treat to the world and were suspected of supporting terrorism. Considering it a more dangerous and urgent treat then North Korea, President Bush began putting pressure on Iraq throughout 2002 for a regime [[change]]. Iraq's dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] had used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, an ethnic minority in Iraq. Considering that Iraq may had been building Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) and was a treat to the United States and its allies, On September 12, 2002 President Bush tried to gain U.N. support for a U.S. led invasion of Iraq and asked for a resolution that Iraq gave up it's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution that demanded Saddam Hussein declare all of it's WMD's, stop supporting terrorism and oppressing his people, Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq. The United States, [[Great Britain]] and about 30 other countries began to prepare for war.

===Aftermath of the Invasion===
[[Image:20031127_dsc2048-515h.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with troops and serves Thanksgiving Dinner at the Bob Hope Dining Facility, Baghdad International Airport, Iraq,, Thursday, November 27, 2003. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] On March 23rd, 2003, U.S. led coalition forces began an attack on Iraq. Most of the Iraqi army dissolved and coalition forces quickly took control of the country. However, sectarian violence worsened through [[bomb]]ings and sniper attacks. On Thanksgiving 2003 President Bush and U.S. National Security Adviser [[Condoleezza Rice]] visited troops in Iraq to boost moral. Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003 while little evidence had shown that he had obtained Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On January 30, 2005 Iraq had it's first general election since the liberation. They voted for a 275-member Iraqi National Assembly which later drafted a constitution. In December Iraq elected a permanent 275-member Council of Representatives. There were low levels of violence during the voting. In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, </ref>

===2007 Troop Surge===

[[Image:20061228-1_p122706pm-0144-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with National Security team, from left to right, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace Thursday, Dec. 28, 2006, at Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House photo by Paul Morse]]
On January 23, 2007 President Bush ordered an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

<blockquote>
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out.
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/603653/the_iraq_war_troop_surge_one_year_later.html</ref>

The surge was opposed by a majority of the United States Congress. However, it has resulted in significantly reduced sectarian violence. According to U.S. Central Command [[General]] [[David Petraeus]], violence in Iraq by December 2008 was at a 5 year low. <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B86G720081209</ref>

===Humanitarian aid===
President Bush has worked to stop the spread of the [[HIV/AIDS]] epidemic in [[Africa]]. In the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) $15 billion dollars over five years (2003–2008) was spent on fighting global HIV/AIDS and improving treatment.

===Economy===

Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in taxes over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

[[Image:20080919-2_p091908jb-0025-1-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush stands with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, left, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, right, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as he delivers a statement on the economy Friday, Sept. 19, 2008, in the Rose Garden. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] Since the tax cuts, IRS revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29% in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4% increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58% to 66% of GDP. Defense spending increased 61%, and non-defense by 23% during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Bush has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage of any president since Lyndon Johnson.<ref>[http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article944806.ece Some think Bush was too liberal], Wes Allison, Tampa Bay Times December 21, 2008 quoting Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University and author of a new paper, "Anatomy of a Divorce: Conservatives versus George W. Bush."</ref>

Bush presided over a period of unreal economic growth that reflected a bubble that burst in 2008. The [[housing bubble]] allowed people to cash in the rising value of houses; low interest rates that led to massive borrowing. Money flowed into the U.S. from around the world. The stock market that hit a record high in 2007, then plunged relentlessly downward, losing $8 trillion in value in 2008. Unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007, but started rapidly increasing after January 2008. Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

See [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] and [[Recession of 2008]],

===Supreme Court Appointments===

After the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], President Bush nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge [[John Roberts]] to fill the vacancy. He was confirmed on September 29, 2005 by a 78-22 vote. To replace the retiring Associate Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] Bush nominated Judge [[Samuel Alito]], after his original nomination of Chief White House Council [[Harriet Miers]] was withdrawn because of widespread opposition due to lack of experience. After an unsuccessful filibuster attempt from [[United States Senate|Senate]] [[liberal]]s, Alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote and was sworn in on January 31, 2006. <ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181091</ref>

===Involvement in the 2008 Presidential election===
In March 2008, Bush endorsed his one-time rival [[John McCain]] as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. However, due to the President's declining popularity in polls, McCain distanced himself from Mr. Bush on the campaign trail. At the same time, Democratic candidate [[Barack Obama]] tried to portray a McCain presidency as four more years of George W. Bush. The President spoke by videolink at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]], while his wife Laura appeared on stage with McCain's wife [[Cindy McCain|Cindy]].
[[Image:George Laura Bush2008.jpg|thumb|left|300px|President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush pose for their last official holiday portrait, Dec. 7, 2008, in the Blue Room of the White House.]]

==Future Plans==
John McCain lost the election to Senator Obama, and President Bush met with the new president-elect to discuss the presidential transition between his administration and Obama's, which he promised would be efficient and without problems. George W. Bush's term ended at noon on January 20, 2009, at which point President-elect Obama was inaugurated. In an interview with ABC's [[Charles Gibson]] in December 2008, Bush said his retirement plans included moving back to his home state of Texas and writing a book. He also wants to build an institute at the Southern Methodist University to serve as a non-partisan public policy forum, to debate issues and run volunteer projects from.

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to [[Laura Bush|Laura Welch Bush]], a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of [[leukemia]].

==Faith==

George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a Bible I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref> Bush's faith led him to veto a bill which would have provided for [[federal funding]] of immoral embryonic stem cell research.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on 12/8/08, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that [[God]] sent his only son.

During his presidential career, George W Bush often consulted God when making important decisions. For example, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, reported that President Bush said that God told him 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan' and 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq' <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa</ref> .
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6418908</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=347242</ref>
He added:
{{cquote|<big><big>'''''I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.'''''</big>}}

==Polls==
When Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and [[liberal bias|biased]] -- reporting on the [[Iraq War]] and misrepresentation of his policies).<ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, Bush had an approval rating of only 24%. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref> The same poll gave the Democratic controlled Congress an approval rating of only 11%). <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews]</ref>

== Farewell Speech ==
*''Delivered January 15, 2009 at the White House. His audience in the East Room included family, friends, Cabinet and some selected Americans President Bush had met in his eight years in office.''

'''Fellow citizens: For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey we have traveled together and the future of our Nation.'''

[[Image:BushSpeech.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush reaches into the audience to shake hands with invited guests and staff members following his farewell address to the nation Thursday evening, Jan. 15, 2009 in the East Room of the White House, where President Bush thanked the American people for their support and trust. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] '''Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole Nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.'''

'''Tonight I am filled with gratitude – to Vice President Cheney and members of the Administration; to Laura, who brought joy to this house and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Barbara and Jenna; to my parents, whose examples have provided strength for a lifetime. And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me. I thank you for ....'''

'''...the prayers that have lifted my spirits. And I thank you for the countless acts of courage, generosity, and grace that I have witnessed these past eight years. '''

'''This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house – September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock.'''

'''I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son’s police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.'''

'''As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before Nine-Eleven. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our Nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.'''

'''Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our Nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists’ movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them.'''

'''Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.'''

'''There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil day and night to keep us safe – law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.'''

'''Our Nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.'''

'''The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.'''

'''This is the belief that gave birth to our Nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism.'''

'''So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We are standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.'''

'''For eight years, we have also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes.'''

'''The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America’s air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner. And the Federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.'''

'''When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy. These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted. All Americans are in this together. And together, with determination and hard work, we will restore our economy to the path of growth. We will show the world once again the resilience of America’s free enterprise system.'''

'''Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.'''

'''The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.'''

'''While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.'''

'''At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.'''

'''As we address these challenges – and others we cannot foresee tonight – America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.'''

'''Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.'''

'''President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” As I leave the house he occupied two centuries ago, I share that optimism. America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.'''

'''I have confidence in the promise of America because I know the character of our people. This is a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a Nation where citizens show calm in times of danger and compassion in the face of suffering. We see examples of America’s character all around us. And Laura and I have invited some of them to join us in the White House this evening.'''

'''We see America’s character in Dr. Tony Recasner, a principal who opened a new charter school from the ruins of Hurricane Katrina. We see it in Julio Medina, a former inmate who leads a faith-based program to help prisoners returning to society. We see it in Staff Sergeant Aubrey McDade, who charged into an ambush in Iraq and rescued three of his fellow Marines.'''

'''We see America’s character in Bill Krissoff, a surgeon from California. His son Nathan, a Marine, gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old – 18 years above the age limit.'''

'''But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America’s wounded warriors and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.'''

'''In citizens like these, we see the best of our country – resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there is more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great Nation will never tire … never falter … and never fail.'''

'''It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. There have been good days and tough days. But every day I have been inspired by the greatness of our country and uplifted by the goodness of our people. I have been blessed to represent this Nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other: citizen of the United States of America.'''

'''And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next President. And may God bless you and our wonderful country."'''

==Quotes==
* "Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."

==Publications==
* [http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279195424&sr=8-1 Decision Points by George W. Bush], released November 9, 2010. ISBN 0307590615

==Further reading==
;Academic
* Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007), 324pp [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001659&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Allard, Scott W. "The Changing Face of Welfare During the Bush Administration." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 304-332. Issn: 0048-5950
* Barone, Michael. ''The Almanac of American Politics'' (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010), highly detailed coverage of electoral politics and Congress.
* Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' 36#4 2006. pp 606+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5018322436 online edition]
* Campbell, Colin, Bert A. Rockman, and Andrew Rudalevige, eds.. ''The George W. Bush Legacy'' Congressional Quarterly Press, 2007, 352pp; 14 essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/George-W-Bush-Legacy/dp/0872893464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001536&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''CQ Almanac Plus'' highly detailed annual compilation of events in Congress, White House, Supreme Court, summarizing the weekly "Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report". (annual, 2002-2009)
* Conlan, Tim and John Dinan. "Federalism, the Bush Administration, and the Transformation of American Conservatism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 279-303. Issn: 0048-5950
* Corrado, Anthony, E. J. Dionne Jr., Kathleen A. Frankovic. ''The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99208680 online edition]
* Daynes, Byron W. and Glen Sussman. "Comparing the Environmental Policies of Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 163-179. Issn: 1535-4738
* Desch, Michael C. "Bush and the Generals." ''Foreign Affairs'' 2007 86(3): 97-108. Issn: 0015-7120 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Eckersley, Robyn. "Ambushed: the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration's Climate Policy and the Erosion of Legitimacy." ''International Politics'' 2007 44(2-3): 306-324. Issn: 1384-5748
* Edwards III, George C. and Philip John Davies, eds. ''New Challenges for the American Presidency'' New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 245 pp. articles from ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''
* Edwards III, George C. and Desmond King, eds. ''The Polarized Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007), 478pp; essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0199217971/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Fortier, John C. and Norman J. Ornstein, eds. ''Second-term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed'' (2007), 146pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0815728840/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Greenstein, Fred I. ed. ''The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003
* Greenstein, Fred I. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Changing Leadership of George W. Bush A Pre- and Post-9/11 Comparison” in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 32#2 2002 pp 387+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000773171 online edition]
* Gregg II, Gary L. and Mark J. Rozell, eds. ''Considering the Bush Presidency'' Oxford University Press, 2004. 210 pp. British perspectives
* Hendrickson, Ryan C., and Kristina Spohr Readman, "From the Baltic to the Black Sea: Bush's NATO Enlargement." ''White House Studies.'' (2004) 4#3 pp: 319+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008838303 online edition]
* Hilliard, Bryan, Tom Lansford, and Robert P Watson, eds. ''George W. Bush: Evaluating the President at Midterm'' SUNY Press 2004
* Jacobson, Gary C. “The Bush Presidency and the American Electorate” ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 33 #4 2003 pp 701+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002052614 online edition]
* Jacobson, Gary C. "Referendum: the 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 2007 122(1): 1-24. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Milkis, Sidney M. and Jesse H.Rhodes. "George W. Bush, the Party System, and American Federalism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 478-503. Issn: 0048-5950
* Moens, Alexander ''The Foreign Policy of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy, and Loyalty.'' Ashgate, 2004. 227 pp.
* Rabe, Barry. "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: the Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 413-431. Issn: 0048-5950
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), experts on the 2006 elections in major states
* Strozeski, Josh, et al. "From Benign Neglect to Strategic Interest: the Role of Africa in the Foreign Policies of Bush 41 and 43." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(1): 35-51. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wekkin, Gary D. "George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush: Puzzling Presidencies, or the Puzzle of the Presidency?" ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 113-124. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wong, Kenneth and Gail Sunderman. "Education Accountability as a Presidential Priority: No Child Left Behind and the Bush Presidency." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 333-350. Issn: 0048-5950

;Pro-Bush
* Barnes, Fred. ''Rebel-in-Chief: How George W. Bush Is Redefining the Conservative Movement and Transforming America'' (2006)
* Draper, Robert. ''Inside the Bush White House: The Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007)
* Hughes, Karen. ''George W. Bush: Portrait of a Leader,'' (2005)
* Gerson, Michael J. ''Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't)'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Heroic-Conservatism-Republicans-Embrace-Americas/dp/006134950X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001391&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* [[Bob Woodward|Woodward, Bob]]. ''Plan of Attack'' (2003) on Iraq war [http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Attack-Bob-Woodward/dp/074325547X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001508&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

;Anti-Bush
* Bartlett, Bruce. ''Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy'' (2006), conservative attack by former aide
* Ferguson, Michaele L. and Lori Jo Marso. ''W Stands for Women: How the George W. Bush Presidency Shaped a New Politics of Gender'' (2007)
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' (2007), memoir by powerful chairman of the Federal Reserve
* Moore, James. and Wayne Slater. ''Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.'' 2003. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107370497 online edition]
* Suskind, Ron. ''The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill'' (2004), complaints of ex Treasury Secretary [http://www.amazon.com/Price-Loyalty-George-Education-ONeill/dp/0743255461/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802463&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

;Bush aides
* Stephen F. Hayes. ''Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americas-Powerful-Controversial-President/dp/0060723467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802328&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search]
* Mabry, Marcus. ''Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power'' (2007)
; Primary sources
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistical tables
* George W. Bush. ''George W. Bush on God and Country: The President Speaks Out About Faith, Principle, and Patriotism'' (2004)

==See Also==

*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Bush Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Bush Doctrine]]
*[[Bush-hater]]
*[[Bushism]]

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

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Texas Governors]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Neoconservative]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:Terrorism]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
{{USPresidents}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.bushcenter.com/ The George W. Bush Presidential Center]
* [http://warrioropen.com/ Warrior Open, Dallas, Texas, on October 10 and 11, 2011]
* [http://www.facebook.com/georgewbush George W. Bush on Facebook]
* [http://www.facebook.com/clintonbushhaitifund?v=wall Clinton Bush Haiti Fund]
* [http://www.honorfreedom.com HonorFreedom.com - a nationwide effort to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine]

User talk:MRellek

2011-08-10T00:15:52Z

Sid 3050: /* Leaving */ I normally would just WIGO this (and I still might bring it up on T:WIGO at least), but seriously, you need a wake-up call.

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:47, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Image DEBT ==

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:29, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

==Why are you here?==

Hi, MRellek. I'm wondering about your purpose of visiting our project. You said you would contribute to math and engineering, but your contribs show nothing in these areas. You've "talked" a lot, and last month you demanded more sysop accountability. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=893593]

What about contributor accountability? Please submite a [[Conservapedia:writing plan]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:47, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
: Unfortunately my life is extremely busy, and I haven't been able to contribute much. Most of my edits have been on the run from my phone, which has limited me primarily to reverting vandalism, and trying to be active in the community. I, dont believe anything I have contributed has been antagonistic or otherwise so I am largely confused as to why you are demanding a "writing plan". Your message comes across as rather rude, but I will understand this once given the large number of vandals which seem attracted here. Also my demand for sysop accountability is directly related to the minor annoyance I get from the intellectually offensive material featured on the main page by one user. Once I get more free time I plan on working on some of the math and engineering articles or chemistry related to my field.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 13:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::On a side note reviewing the diff you provided does not scream me demanding sysop accountability, as I was simply commenting on an oddity in a conversation. Additionally, I made no promise to write on math and engineering exclusively, and I have made some edits to chemistry. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 13:30, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Leaving ==

Due to not having much time to devote to this project, and editorial differences with some fellow users I will be leaving for at least a bit. I may return to check in from time to time. However, at this point I do not feel as though the little time I have to edit a wiki will best be used here, as it has not been appreciated thus far. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
*'''Parting shot rebuttal'''. You did demand sysop accountablity (no one said "screamed"): "I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why." And at the point I called you to account, I had not seen any of the promised math or engineering contribs; your parting shot muddies the waters by protesting that you didn't promise only to write on these; my request for a writing plan comes because you didn't write on these '''at all'''.
*Liberals like to pretend that they are blameless, while blaming everyone else. Just like the guy in Oslo the other week. Well, peddle it somewhere else, you're not fooling anyone here.
*If you really want to make contributions you (or the RW "neighbors") are always free to do so. You need not bother to keep up the pretense of persecuted rationality any more. Rational people do what is requested and keep their promises. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::Ed, your Writing Plan policy comes over as nothing but "You didn't break the rules, but I still would like to have an excuse to ban you, so follow my orders ''or else''." You single-handedly drove a user away, and now (three days later) you basically dance in his abandoned house and declare yourself to be correct?
::And your bit about what "rational people do" is hilariously wrong. Rational people will consider the costs and benefits when it comes to spending their limited free time, and then act accordingly. As such, MRellek acted perfectly rational:
::*User didn't break any rules, yet is suddenly on probation and has to submit a writing plan
::*User delivers a writing plan ("Once I get more free time I plan on working on some of the math and engineering articles or chemistry related to my field.")
::*User is banned. Forever.
::*User is gradually unbanned, no word on whether the probation is lifted, and the loose-cannon sysop barely gets a slap on the wrist.
::Things like these tend to make people feel unwelcome. CP already offers close to no benefits for the average user, so even "minor things" like getting a permanent ban for not unconditionally submitting to a specific sysop will tip the scales towards "Oh well, I tried, but whatever."
::I know you and your fellow sysops think that Conservapedia is soooooooo much better than Wikipedia and that people would do anything to be allowed to stay and contribute to this glorious project, but... uh, no. It's not. It's a safe haven for fringe opinions ("Jesus disproves General Relativity! Beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution! Declining SAT scores disprove an old Earth!") and for parodists who get their kicks out of parroting Andy while behaving like jerks to regular non-sysops.
::And how about CP's awesome reputation that makes editors want to contribute? Liberals think that CP is a ''troll site'' (literally - ask Conservative, he's the one to thank for that), conservatives just look at the "The Bible needs to be retranslated into Conservative English!" project and shake their heads, and when Dawkins mentioned Andy's little Lenski episode in his book, a Creationist site accused him of attacking a ''straw man''.
::Conservapedia was founded more than four years ago. Look at the site in its current state, look at its history, and then ask yourself whether you can afford to drive away people who did no harm just because they didn't do exactly what you expected them to do. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Michele Bachmann

2011-08-07T18:59:53Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 898232 by Cnorton (talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Michele Bachmann
|image=Michele Bachmann.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Marcus Bachmann
|religion= Non-Denominational Christian
(Was formerly a member of the [[Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod]])<REF>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-leaves-church-gets-catholic-support-52384/ Bachmann leaves church] Anugrah Kumar, The Christian Post, 27 July 2011</REF>
|offices=
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Minnesota
|district=6th
|terms=January 4, 2007 – Present
|preceded=Mark Kennedy
|former=
|succeeded=
}}
}}

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

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

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

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

== [[Liberal]] Criticisms ==

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

Bachmann's husband has also been the target of untrue smears by liberals. Fearful of her popularity as she runs for president, liberals have taken the low road and attacked her family.

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

== References ==
{{reflist}}

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

Liberal

2011-08-07T18:58:49Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 898228 by Cnorton (talk)

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[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]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ John Maynard Keynes - the pedophile, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.<ref>As one liberal website candidly observes, "Obama is a shallow narcissist, not a believer in any cause higher than himself. Every American president has had a healthy ego, but none has ever been as purely motivated by vanity as the childishly self-loving [[Barack Obama]]."[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Barack-Obama-s-ego-driven-by-Christopher-Calder-091210-804.html]</ref> Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[socialist]]ic. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into corruption.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in bed with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the re-election campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown more Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal, by a ratio of 2-1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]], the opposition of [[free speech]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the [[Bible]] and God.
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]].
* Withholds support to our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.
* Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
* Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.
* Supports financially irresponsible policies.
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect.
* Do not support a free-market economy and support regulation of business.
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>
* Support of leftist ideologies such as [[socialism]] and nazism
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]].

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>. In practice, however, liberals are often the most intolerant of people, and frequently are on the side of disorder, chaos, anarchy, and lawbreaking. According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - and matched by current observation - liberals are "unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite...lacking significant moral restraints" or "... an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering conditions to a preference for lawlessness."<ref>''Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged'', Volume II; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, 1986. (pg. 1303, column 1)</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ==
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and the article exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his charitable giving]].

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: ''SIN''. Liberals (1) '''S'''hift the subject, they (2) '''I'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''N'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "''mixed''" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]

{{cquote|'''There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

*[[Joseph Stalin]] was an [[atheism|atheist]], [[communism|communist]], and [[evolution|evolutionist]] dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Mao Tse Tung]] - atheist and communist dictator responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Tea Party Movement

2011-08-07T18:58:14Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 898227 by Cnorton (talk)

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 mistakenly 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 in early 2009.<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> One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a "Tea Party 2007" to promote Paul's bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government. It is likely 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, and its emergence 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> The rallies are promoted as protests 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 leaders say has been in progress for several decades, to sacrifice [[liberty]] for permanent dependency.

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 have 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]] is 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 have encouraged and participated in aspects of the movement.

Impetus was given to the movement when radio talk-show host [[Rush Limbaugh]] criticized the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]] on January 27, commenting, "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, 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, held 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>

===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> 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 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]]''

==== 2009 ====
Success from the Chicago Tea Parties on February 27, as part of a concerted nationwide effort, led to the Tax Day Tea Party rallies held on April 15, 2009. Following the Chicago Tea Party protests, 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 [[Web site]] [[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>

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]] endorsed 50 candidates running for U.S. House of Representatives; 31 of 50 Tea Party 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>

=== 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 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 leaders 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>

===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 have a positive view of the tea party movement, and 24% had a negative view . By contrast, only 35% of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28% have 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 demised slightly recently, dropping to a low of 21% <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.]]
* [[Boston Tea Party]]
* [[Tea Party Organizations]]
* [[Tea Party Express]]
* [[Tea Party Patriots]]
* [[Contract From America]]

==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]
* [http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html Don't Tread on Me]: Gadsden Flag History.
* [http://ccsrwm.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/Berlet%20paper.pdf Demonizing the Tea Party Movement by Chip Barlett (Berkeley)] PDF

===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]]

Template talk:Delete

2011-08-07T01:22:00Z

Sid 3050: /* Nominating this for deletion/merging */ new section

How would we feel about changing this template to

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">''This article has been proposed for '''deletion'''. Discuss the matter at [[Conservapedia:AFD {{PAGENAMEE}}]].''
</div>

That way, it would be more clear to the reader that the article may be so flawed as to merit deletion. The current template is unobtrusive, and so readers might not notice this important information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 03:52, 23 December 2009 (EST)

== Nominating this for deletion/merging ==

Conservapedia got rid of its AFD process years ago (a very short time after users introduced it) since all deletions decisions are made solely by the administrators to avoid evil liberals from taking over the site (this was pretty much the verbatim reasoning back then).

So let's just change over the current "candidates" to <nowiki>{{speedy}}</nowiki> unless they're salvageable and erase this template. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:22, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T20:31:04Z

Sid 3050: /* Yea */ Don't mind me, I'm just the list fairy.

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

# Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#:'''Comment''' When did you vote and who altered your edit? Show diffs, please, before throwing around reckless, wild accusations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:28, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Conservative made good points about RobS's affiliations with an Atheist site. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is one of the few people on here in power who is consistently calling for sysop accountability, something that is vital to a collaborative project like this. While I certainly do not support everything he does on here, not including this current issue, it is night and day compared to the nothingness that Conservative and his "articles" bring to this encyclopedia. This is a case of sour grapes from Conservative since he is the main culprit of sysop abuse currently. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#No. He is a diligent and attentive administrator, as far as I am aware.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. RobS seems to be primarily promoting discussion about the Rules and Guidelines of this site and the accountability of administrators to those guidelines. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 09:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. This started out as a simple request from one admin to another for the latter to be more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki. user:Conservative has acted in a manner unbecoming of a sysop, dragging the debate across several pages, including - ironically - Mr. Schlafly's, whilst insisting that people cannot post on his talk page. If anybody deserves censure out of this, it is user:Conservative - he blows a simple request totally out of proportion, divides the sysop body and suddenly runs away - again! - claiming he is "very busy." Somebody this irresponsible should not be in a position of authority. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:12, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. User:Conservative makes this site look like a joke, and User:RobS is correct in attempting to discipline him. {{unsigned|JanW}}

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T01:30:06Z

Sid 3050: /* Comment */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only people who actually support Conservative's articles and "essays" are trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets. Conservative has truly contributed NOTHING of value or quality to the site, and what little he has contributed does nothing but attract vandals and parodists. Conversely, RobS wants to hold sysops accountable for their actions and fix the ban policies. Of course Conservative wants RobS to lose his sysop rights, otherwise Conservative couldn't continue to undermine this site from within with his awful essays and poorly researched, shoddy articles. Conservative only cares about his own power, even if that means turning this site into a caricature of conservatism and his own personal blog/echo chamber.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T01:02:54Z

Sid 3050: /* A slightly more pressing comment */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T20:35:37Z

Sid 3050: /* Nay */ Reformatting Camille's post to avoid breaking the numbered list

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:26:51Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 895479 by MrDemyer (talk) Can the trolls at least TRY to be subtle?

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:11:03Z

Sid 3050: /* Time Limit */

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:06:00Z

Sid 3050: Rename headlines

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:04:57Z

Sid 3050: /* Nay */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==

==Nay==

*I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
*RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

*Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should loose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
*Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T18:59:08Z

Sid 3050: Move cat further up so it doesn't always appear in the Nay section

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==

==Nay==

I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Barack Hussein Obama

2011-07-30T23:40:36Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 895156 by SocailistnumberONE (talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion=Claims to be 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''' (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]] 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>

[[Poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly in his time in office.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-09-16-poverty-rate-income-numbers_N.htm</ref> By and large, his economic policies to combat the recession have, to date, ranged from ineffective to counterproductive.<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 a major [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. In foreign policy Obama has escalated the [[Afghanistan War]] and, 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 Ladens death had negligible impact on Obama's approval ratings.

==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 is disputed whether Obama was actually born in the United States, many people believing him to have been born in Kenya.

==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.<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 the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[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 ([[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>{{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>

[[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, although it certainly was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous. 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]].<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]], the federal courts have 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> 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 mainsream 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 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. 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.

====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]] 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>

=====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, however 50,000 U.S. troops remain in the country.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-31/politics/obama.oval.office.address_1_iraq-requests-united-states-and-iraq-troop-surge?_s=PM:POLITICS|work=CNN|title=Obama: 'Time to turn the page' as Iraq combat mission ends|date=August 31, 2010|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]]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Republican Party

2011-07-30T23:39:49Z

Sid 3050: Undo revision 895154 by SocailistnumberONE (talk)

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Republican Party
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]
| headquarters = 310 K Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Reince Priebus]]
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]]
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]]
| foundation = 1854
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Classical Liberalism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Republican Party''' or informally the '''GOP''' (short for Grand Old Party), is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The Republican Party is [[pro-life]], while the [[Democratic Party]] is [[pro-abortion]].

In the past, the Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen, military veterans and evangelical Protestants. Some groups have realigned: blacks went from the GOP to the Democrats in the 1930s, while white Southerners became Republicans in the 1980s. Catholics switched from 80% Democratic in 1960 to 50-50 in recent years, primarily due to the embrace of [[abortion]] by the Democrats. In recent years youth and better educated professionals have moved to the Democrats, while blue collar workers have become more Republican, again due to the abortion issue.

The Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth Party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP.

18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. The party's most recent candidate [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], together with his running mate Alaska Governor [[Sarah Palin]], lost the 2008 presidential election to Democrat [[Barack Obama]] and his running mate [[Joe Biden]].

== Symbol ==
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]

The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]], published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in some Midwestern states was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. The eagle still appears on Indiana ballots.

A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.

==Ideology==
Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.

Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy, especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty.

The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.

In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased [[federal funding]] for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.

In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref>

== History ==
[[File:GOP-presidents.jpg|thumb|300px|GOP Presidents by Andy Thomas; clockwise from far right: Nixon, Ford, Lincoln, GHW Bush, Reagan, GW Bush, Eisenhower, Roosevelt]]
The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 11 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].

===Third Party System: 1854-1894===
The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.

====Issues: Slavery====
Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref>

Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref>

The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes.

====Modernization====
Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.
====Ethnocultural voting====
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref>

====Politics 1854-1860====
[[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
{{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}
{{See also|Third Party System}}

====Civil War: 1861-1865====
Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.

====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====
In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.

Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.

Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.

In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134]

Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)

====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====
The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888.

As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.
====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====

From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them.

Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).
Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref> See Kleppner (1979)</ref>
===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===
The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920.

====McKinley and realignment====
McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy.

McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.

====Roosevelt and Progressivism====
[[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]].

Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals.

Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908.

====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====

The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty.

The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened.

Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.

====State and local politics====
The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes.

====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====
The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds.

The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans.

The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].

==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==
Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) – combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide.

Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan).

[[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system.

The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy.

Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.

====Strength of Parties 1977====
How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:

{| class=wikitable
! Party
! Republican
! Democratic
! Independent
|-
! Party ID (Gallup)
| 22%
| 47%
| 31%
|-
! Congressmen
| 181
| 354
|
|-
! House
| 143
| 292
|
|-
! Senate
| 38
| 62
|
|-
! % House popular vote nationally
| 42%
| 56%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 41%
| 57%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 37%
| 62%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 47%
| 52%
| 1%
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 43%
| 55%
| 2%
|-
! Governors
| 12
| 37
| 1
|-
! rowspan=2 | State Legislators
| 2,370
| 5,128
| 55
|-
| 31%
| 68%
| 1%
|-
! State legislature control
| 18
| 80
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 5
| 13
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 0
| 32
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 5
| 17
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 8
| 18
| 0
|-
! States' one party control of legislature and governorship
| 1
| 29
| 0
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.

Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6

====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====
The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]].
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.

====Suburbia====
The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp.
DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref>

An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref>

====Rise of the right====
[[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South.

As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970.

With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref>

====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====
In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.

However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs.

The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.

The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.

In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref>

===Reagan Era===

In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.

Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present), he inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders.

Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.

House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate).

In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defense spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed.

In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.

With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal.

The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934).

Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world.

On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], won 251 Electoral votes and 48% of the popular vote to Bush's 51%. It was the first time anyone won a popular majority since 1988. 2004 marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.
==2009==
After smashing defeats in 2006 and 2008, the GOP lost control of Congress, the White House, and many states. They confront president who still retains some popularity, but have been able to chip away at support for his domestic policies, as the [[recession of 2008]] continues to drag on. In June 2009 public opinion was favorable toward Obama personally, but increasingly dubious about his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. But with a positive job approval rating of 51% , Obama has the backing of most Democrats, even as Republicans turn negative, with only 23% supporting him. Support for Obama's foreign policies and terrorism policies remains high at 57-59%. Meanwhile the GOP weaknesses were glaring: the June poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28% of Americans, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57% said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.<ref> [Jeff Zeleny and Dalia Sussman, "Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html?th&emc=th ''New York Times'' June 17, 2009]</ref>

== GOP (Frisbee team) ==

The term GOP may also refer to one of the frisbee teams of Carleton College, located in Northfield, MN.[https://apps.carleton.edu/campus/rec/club/?item_id=43089]

==Presidents from the party==
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)

==Notable Republicans (Non-presidential)==
*[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893): Senator from [[Maine]], presidential nominee
*[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926): [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives]]
*[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936): United States [[Vice President]], a Native American
*[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951): United States Vice President
*[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971): Governor of [[New York]]; presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948
*[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890): First Republican candidate for president
*[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904): Senator from [[Ohio]], manager of 1896 campaign
*[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904): Senator from [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Charles Evans Hughes]]: Governor of New York; presidental nominee in 1916, United States Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908 - 1974), Senator from [[California]], Senate Majority Leader from 1953-1955, Senate Minority Leader from 1955-1959
*[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924): Senator from [[Massachusetts]], foreign policy spokesman
*[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957): Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted anti-communist
*[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902): Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
*[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979): Vice President, Governor of New York, leader of liberals
*[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792 - 1868): Senator from [[Pennsylvania]], leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Charles Sumner]] (1811 - 1874): Senator from Massachusetts, leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Henry Stimson]]: Secretary of War for Taft and FDR, Secretary of State for Hoover
*[[Robert Taft]] (1889 - 1953): Senator from Ohio and presidential hopeful, leader of conservatives
*[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003): the oldest serving senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])
*[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951): Senator from Michigan, leader of internationalism in 1940s
*[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974): Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[John McCain]]: Senator from [[Arizona]], presidential nominee in 2008
*[[Sarah Palin]]: Governor of [[Alaska]], vice-presidential nominee in 2008
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]: Governor of [[California]]

==See Also==
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Bibliography==
===Historical===
*''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.
* Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp.
* ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945
* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]
*Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state
* Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995),
*Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist
*Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition]
*Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)
*Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model
*Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
*Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.
*Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era
*Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.
*Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972)
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]
*Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative
*Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
**includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
*Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)
* Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.
*Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]
* Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography
===Since 1980===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.
* Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)
* Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp.
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian
* Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative
*Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993
* Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)
* Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp.
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian
* Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp.
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).
* Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars
* Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp.
* Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]
*[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Modernization]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-29T19:10:57Z

Sid 3050: /* Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority */ new section

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== User: RobS ==

At [[User talk:RobSmith]] I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I fully support this. I am a great fan of [[User:Conservative]] having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of an iron-fisted dictator. You have no credibility. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving buffoon. [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]]. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his inordinately sized ego, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an unreasonable person such as yourself who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Did you send an email that reads,
::::*''Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
:::::''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, '''RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month. ''' ''
::::This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define [[Conservapedia:Vandalism]], yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rob, I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Arbitrary and unfair blocking===
Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, [[Chip Berlet]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with '''hard evidence''' that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::*'' RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP''
:::::How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
:::::The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ed says,
:*''If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.''
:*Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here ([[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
:*If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
:*Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops ''still'' block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
:*Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
:*Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
:*Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
:*Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
:*CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::*''there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas ''
::::::Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
::First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
::Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
::That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
::Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
::I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
::Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, you make some ''very'' good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
:::The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about ''vandals'', but rather about ''parodists''. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
::::[tangent]
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|policy-definition of "parody"]] on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's ''a'' definition of "parody", but not ''the'' definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
::::An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of ''almost becoming a sysop''. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
::::The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
::::[/tangent]
:::The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should ''do better''. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
:::Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's ''hard'' at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the ''role models'', and they ''will'' lead by example. They ''need'' to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they ''mustn't'' let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights ==

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct this], which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at [[Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers]]. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the [[Western World]], the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website ==

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.

I think RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "a useful idiot"] and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.

If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
:The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, ''Philip J. Rayment''. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask ''why'' some people were banned and wanted to see ''evidence''? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
:Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
:It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::::::::The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*''If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.''
::::::::::::::How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
: If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::: Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it would. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to [[Conservapedia:Community Portal‎]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology Kremlinology] (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
::::*neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed] has been repealed;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors] is added;
::::*and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed.
::::Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|personal remark removed]]}}, per [[CP:Guidelines#Civility]]? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an ''allegedly'' abusive sysop are over. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::RobS, I can live with you being an egotistical blowhard. On the other hand, a backstabbing untrustworthy egotistical blowhard is a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::"If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
*''play power games and '''try stifle discussion'''''
:My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have untrustworthy backstabbers as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
'''RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication.''' Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. '''Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. [[User:MorrisF]]
:::::::::I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section Break===
Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at [[Guidelines#Civility]]. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights ==

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I know I am a new poster ==
But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article [[Soviet atheism]] and please cite reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
:::::And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Concerning the article [[Soviet atheism]], how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning [[Soviet atheism]]. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Proposed blocking reform framework ==

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== 3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights ==

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
: There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.

:Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.

:User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip.] As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

''15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 here.] Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

''16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)'' Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions?
''02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving])'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize )'' Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

''02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) wit''h an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing)'' User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 Offending post here.] Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

''00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 here.]

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::JonS, you are still wrong. [[Matt Barber]] and [[William Dembski]] linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|HERE]]. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia [[Climategate]] article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate ==

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they '''both''' lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|above]] he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
===One second...===
This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:::It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

==My two cents for Mr Schlafly==

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a ''disinterested'' admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual ''edits'' that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, if you eventually gain Sysop status, I would work on getting a blocking review board going. Putting notices of the board meeting on the front page will never realistically happen though. I would also suggest having the meetings occur according to a specified time period for predictability (bi-monthly, monthly, every two months, etc. ) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:29, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== My proposed solution to the current crisis ==
My understanding is that the the [[User:CPanel|Student Panel]] has the final word on all matters related to the site. Why don't we put the following questions to them?

* Who is wrong here? Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
* In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
* Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
* If not, what policy would be?

I feel this is the only solution left. God Bless. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

::'''''We''''' shouldn't present it to them - it should be either Conservative or Rob who bring the case before the panel, since it involves them. Andy could, if he prefers to remain neutral in this case, have the panel look over the situation. If there are any other editors who are ''directly'' involved, then they too might have a reason to take it before the panel. The rest of us are onlookers and we should all cease involving ourselves into the matter. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I appreciate the concern SharonW. I should have asked Aschlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of time. He would have been glad to do it. As far as a blocking policy, I put together what I thought was a workable block review policy framework and maybe someone will pick up that ball and run with it. I said I may help develop a blocking review policy in the fall, but the more I think about it that was wishful thinking. I have decided to pursue other matters. As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:37, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Does the Panel still exist?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 01:18, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::[[User:SharonW|SharonW]], I respectfully disagree. RobS and Conservative are creating a problem for the whole community and it is therefore the responsibility of the whole community to see that it gets solved. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 02:21, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking review ==

I strongly believe the only true way to have a fair blocking policy is to have users who are willing to review blocks. I've been worried about the implications of what amounts to block-reverting, but I'm confident enough in the sysop community that I don't think any user would object to having a second pair of eyes look at a block; I also think it's important that users who really think they've been unfairly blocked be able to make their case and in some cases be given a second chance. It's been said we don't have the manpower for such reviews, but I think we're overestimating the number of users who would take the time to ask for review on a block. I've publicly listed my email on my [[User:Iduan|userpage]] for users who do wish to do so.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority ==

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=893605&oldid=893603 DouglasA removes a list of games from a game franchise article]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=894046&oldid=893605 SeanS reverts this (IMHO senseless) deletion]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASeanS&year=&month=-1 DouglasA blocks SeanS for two weeks: "Reverting admin"]
Anybody see what is wrong in this picture? Anybody? You, the man in the top hat! What was that? "It's sysop abuse to block somebody for a simple revert?" BZZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! DouglasA is absolutely in the right here.

''It's the rules that are messed up.''

I feel it's time we take a closer look at one of the more silent policies of Conservapedia: Editorial authority!

So what is Editorial Authority? Let's take a look at [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]]:
*'''Do not revert an Administrator's changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission. Administrators are in charge of deciding the editorial policy of Conservapedia. Their instruction(s) on such matters are always to be followed.'''

In other words: If an administrator edits a mainspace article to read "General Relativity causes breast cancer", then normal editors are not allowed to remove that without asking for permission. If said permission doesn't come, then tough luck, go edit something else, liberal.

This is why this block is perfectly within the rules. And even a five-year block would have been fine - after all, we don't have any guidelines about block durations.

It's also an ''excellent'' illustration that something is deeply wrong here.

Can we ''please'' get rid of this obscure rule? It's one of the worst policies ever introduced and completely kills off the wiki spirit through the most literal form of "Might makes right". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Sysop complaint documentation

2011-07-29T17:51:49Z

Sid 3050: /* Contacting */

==Contacting==
Tricky - with the internal mail system being down, users would have to contact a sysop in public, which would only result in scattered discussions (as the people who know they're likely to be the target of a complaint will jump into the sections) and potential retaliation.

Maybe a sysop who wants to listen should leave a mail address in public? Not his main one, mind you (spambots would have a field day), but a single-purpose one that can be set to filter out anything but certain mails: For example, set a filter to automatically delete all mails unless they have "[CP]" in the subject line and then post something like "You can reach me at [new mail address], but be sure to include ''[CP]'' in the subject line" on his user page. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

PS: This would also solve the issue we once briefly talked about on the Community Portal. You know, the "How to challenge a ban now that the mail system is gone" discussion. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:26, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:This system is not really designed to handle editor complaints against sysops, it's more to document potentially errant misapplication or CP policies by CP sysops, among CP sysops. There's an effort to avoid personality disputes and counter-claims. Once sysops have been instructed privately and publicly about potential misuse of sysop tools, and a sysop persists in their own interpretation of policy, other sysops can begin documenting the potential violations. Editors are free to help, but the evidence they bring to the initiating sysops talk page should generally be neutral, i.e. without a conflict of interest. IOW, the potentially damagaing evidence carries more weight if they present an abusive personal remark against a third party rather than toward themselves as a complaintant.

:This proposal isn't perfect, and experience will help refine problems, but it is a start in the direction of Sysops demanding better conduct from each other. Then a sysops conduct can be measured against standing policy. Let's hope nobody sees the necessity to originate a first case. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::Ah, I see now; I misread the respective part at the top. Somewhat unfortunate to introduce such a limit in my eyes, but I guess there's a plan behind this. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:51, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Sysop complaint documentation

2011-07-29T17:26:51Z

Sid 3050: /* Contacting */