Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Early voting

2012-11-23T03:02:22Z

SteveSpagnola: add a bit more for honesty

== Voter intimidation ==

The page says that early voting "facilitates voter intimidation, particularly by unions and large employers that try to increase turnout by their people." Could someone please explain this? As I understand it, the ballot is still secret, and voters are free to spoil their ballot without anyone knowing. I personally think that increased ''lawful'' participation in democracy makes our government better. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:04, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

:Studies show that overall turnout is not increased by early voting. If anything, it detracts from the respect of Election Day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::You did not answer the question. How does early voting "facilitate voter intimidation." ?

:::It's obvious: union bosses and employers tell the rank and file to vote early, and may even drive them to the polls. That is not voting free from all intimidation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::The only intimidation I can see that's unique to early voting is pressuring voters to make up their minds before Election Day. The practice of employers or churches bus their employees or parishoners to the polls could just as easily be done on Election Day itself. So, to the extent that such practices are bad, I don't see how that is caused by extending early voting or no-fault absentee voting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:51, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

==Need sources==
An encyclopedia article needs to be more than personal opinion and should have sources. The sentence, "The less the early voting, the more integrity there is in the process, and the more likely it is the Republican candidate will win.:" is not necessarily true and is certainly not true over a long period of time. But there is no caveat as to what time period is address. The only text reference is to the year 2010. I can think of states where early voting was disproportionately for the Republican candidate. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:01, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:I'll look for cites, but the truth of the statement is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::It is not self-evident nor universally applicable. Suppose there is a state with a popular Republican US Senator who is polling at 70%. He will get 70% of the early vote. If there is a hurricane on election day and only very few hard core supporters vote on that day, he may get only 50% of election day votes. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:19, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
:::"The truth of the statement is self-evident." That's a great way to avoid having to back up assertions with empirical data. Have you ever tried that on a judge? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 10:23, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

::::Folks, do you look for cites on the internet? They are not hard to find, and I've just added two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::Well, you have some anecdotal evidence, nothing that suggests a wider pattern, but it's a start, so that's an improvement. Next time, don't wait for people to beg you for citations. Learn how to make and document an argument properly. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:::::::How about looking first on the internet, before complaining? The statements about the defects in early voting are logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Thank you for your copy edit of my copy edit. Much better. However 7 p.m. + 7 hours = 2 a.m. not 4 a.m. I still believe that generalizations need to be limited to "in 2012" or "in Colorado" etc. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:36, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Depending on the state (for instance, early votes cast in Florida tend to buck the trend by being overwhelmingly Republican), a quick glance over some sources does lead me to reluctantly agree with Andy that early voting does tend to give a ''slight'' advantage to Democratic candidates (enough to sway the results of a '''close''' election). This is because the demographics most likely to vote early are the elderly (who usually vote Republican), racial minorities (who usually vote for Democrats), and blue collar workers (who also trend towards the Democrats). Given the reasons most often cited for voting early, which are convenience, having to work on election day, and having already decided who to vote for, this is not particularly surprising. It does not, however, appear that this is has anything to do with voter intimidation or any other underhanded tactics; its just the nature of the process. (here are links to the sources I looked over, [http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/archives/2010/EarlyVotingReport.pdf link 1], [http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/earlyvotingfull/report5.pdf link 2], [http://www.leonvotes.org/?page=Maps%20and%20Demographics/VoterDemographics.asp link 3], [http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html link 4]. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 09:33, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:You're either assuming that those people would somehow vote otherwise if they waited until election day or advocating that citizens--and last I checked, Democrats are still citizens--should be denied the franchise because it just so happens that a particular voting pattern tends to get out one party's votes in a particular way. What's the next step on that slope? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 09:50, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, restrictive voter ID laws like those in Texas and (before it was essentially gutted of its worst elements by the state during the preclearance process) South Carolina. Also, restrictions on voter registration as found in Texas and Florida. But this is just my opinion. Regardless, I think making it easier for eligible voters to exercise the franchise is something to be commended, not condemned. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:41, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:::There is nothing inherently "Republican" about those demographics or about the pros and cons of early voting. The impact of early voting depends on the relative popularity of the candidates. We should not present these statements as timeless truths, when there are so many variables. What is a good strategy for Republicans like Arnold S in California or Paul Ryan in Wisconsin will not apply to Michele Bachmann in Minnesota. Our readers (including teenagers) are counting on us to give them a straight-forward article on early voting. Saying it helps Republicans or Democrats is far removed from the essence of the idea of early voting, because it depends on who are the candidates and the nature of the jurisdiction. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:45, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

::::Early voting infringes on the right not to vote. For example, it subjects union workers to repeated harassment over a period of days or weeks until they vote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::That is not a result of "early voting" but rather of the state laws that give political parties access to the list of people who vote early or absentee. In a jurisdiction that allow early voting and keeps the list secret, there is no possibility of organized follow through. The ''Wall Street Journal'' recently ran an article on corporations where management told their workers how to vote, including statements that if the wrong candidates won, they might have to shut the plant. So, harassment goes both ways. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:56, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::Plus, if a voter decides that they don't want to vote, he or she can always spoil the ballot. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:50, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

What effect will [[Hurricane Sandy]] have on [[early voting]]? Will it sway the result toward one candidate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:53, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
: I have added Gov. McDonnell's request to expand in-person absentee polling hours in Virginia. There may be similar moves in other states. The storm has shifted campaign schedules and GOTV efforts. Thank goodness none of the candidates have tried to blame the storm on their opponent. With the power out, the bombardment of negative television adds and [[robocall]]s has ceased. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:45, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

==Additional States and voter rolls==
It is my understanding that Oregon and Washington only allow voting by mail--if so, wouldn't they qualify as states which allow early voting? Also, it is my understanding that all states provide lists of citizens who have voted in each election, so wouldn't that also allow intimidation?

Since making these edits would constitute "substantial changes" I thought it wise to discuss them here first.

Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:56, 13 November 2012 (EST)

:Yes, you're right. Oregon and Washington are 100% early voting ... and as result it is virtually impossible for a Republican to win there. Please add your good suggested edits to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 13 November 2012 (EST)
::The problem is that they are not "swing states" or "battle ground states" so that they do not belong in this particular table. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:18, 15 November 2012 (EST)
::: You are correct that they are not swing states, though I hope that instead of burring information on Washington and Oregon at the bottom of the article, we could expand the table since the article is about early voting and not early voting in swing states. Also, for the record, I disagree with your use of quotes around early voting in that section since ever vote that is cast before election day is, by definition, early. In line with this common sense approach, I will edit that contribution accordingly. '''EDITED TO ADD''':I see that you also removed a line noting that all states release lists of those who voted after an election. This information is correct, and was discussed prior to insertion on this talk page. Since you removed it without discussion, am editing the article to re-include it--pending your response. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:44, 15 November 2012 (EST)
:It is true that most (if not all) states make the list of registered voters available after the election, including whether the particular voter participated in the primary or general election. It is also true that many states make list of early voters or absentee voters available during the period before election day, which will allow campaigns to taylor their voter contacts in light of who has already voted and who has not. Neither of these is necessarily related to voter intimidation. For example, a campaign might want to contact past voters on the assumption that they are more likely to vote in the next election as well. Similarly, if a campaign knows that someone has already voted early, then the campaign will not waste time or money contacting them again in its GOTV efforts. While making such data public is specified in various state laws, the fact that it is public is not evidence that voter intimidation in fact occurs. If an argument is being constructed that there is voter intimidation of early voters, then the fact that the list of all voters is also made public after the election is completely irrelevant to the argument. Thanks for all that you do for CP. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:31, 15 November 2012 (EST)
:Please respect the difference between "early voting", "convenience voting", "absentee voting" and "postal voting." Political scientists have assigned exact definitions to each. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:33, 15 November 2012 (EST)
::Thank you for your informative post. I have reviewed the literature over the past few days (you may be interested to know I hold a political science degree, although I am not an americanist). I would merely note that the literature does not draw such black and white lines--for example, Burden et al, include postal voting and no excuse absentee voting as examples of early voting. ''Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout:The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform, 2010'' That said I will respect your edits. I would encourage you to consider the level at which this project is written--that is, how useful is graduate level term definition? One final topic: you'll note that my edit regarding state voter rolls never speculated as to the purpose of releasing the information, merely that such information was released. You must have been thinking of a later section regarding impacts. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:13, 18 November 2012 (EST)

== re: claim that early voting undermines voter ID ==

I reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Early_voting&diff=1018436&oldid=1018367 this edit] because it does not have a solid factual basis. First of all, some of the early voting states listed in the article do not even have voter ID laws in effect (Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina). Second of all, some strict photo ID states like Georgia have no-excuse absentee balloting as a failsafe to prevent disenfranchisement of voters who may otherwise like photo ID. ''See'' ''Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups'', 504 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1379 (2007). Finally, the edit ignores laws of states like Illinois, which require early voters (such as Obama this election) to present ID, but not Election Day voters. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:32, 13 November 2012 (EST)

'''EDITED TO ADD''': Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Georgia's 2005 photo ID act (HB 244, Act 53) also instituted no-excuse absentee voting. Additionally, from my reading of the trial documents in ''South Carolina v. U.S.'', the supporters of photo voter ID saw no-excuse absentee voting as a concession that could be offered to secure compromise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:59, 13 November 2012 (EST)

== How exactly does it disenfranchise? ==

If the process is entirely voluntary and allows people to vote who otherwise might not be able to do, how is it in any way hindering others from voting? Is it somehow more sacrosanct to vote a month later? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:05, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:Not "more sancrosanct," but more informed to vote on [[Election Day]]. If 99% of the electorate vote early before campaigns are over, then the conscientious voter who does his due diligence by voting on Election Day has been disenfranchised from his vote being meaningful. To the extent early voting is less than 99%, the degree of disenfranchisement scales accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::You keep claiming that those who vote on Election Day are more informed, but that's hogwash. Campaigns are largely meaningless, you know who you are going to vote for by and large before the conventions. Anyone who hasn't formed an opinion by the time most early voting takes place probably isn't paying close enough attention to make an informed choice by the time Election Day rolls around. And really, how many of those who vote early are going to change their mind? I would probably say almost none, and therefore it's hardly "disenfranchising" for the results to be moved up a month. Seriously, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that large swaths of people change their minds in September and October. For the VAST majority (I can confidently say at least 80-90 percent) the decision isn't changing, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote early? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:34, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:::Due diligence requires awaiting completion of presentation of the "evidence" - i.e., campaigns. Jurors who keep their mind open until the end are performing their duty better than those who rush to judgment early. Voters certainly do change their mind just prior to Election Day; polls confirm that millions remain undecided until they cast their votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::::Yeah, no, that argument fails on so many levels, most importantly in that a candidate's major goals and beliefs have long since been outlined long before election day. The difference between October and November is a month of gaffes and attack ads that don't sway anyone.

::::See: Luks , Samantha, Joanne Miller, and Lawrence Jacobs . "Who Wins? Campaigns and the Third Party Vote." Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33.1 (2003): 9-30.

::::Lazarsfeld, Paul, Bernard Berelson, and Helen Gaudet. 1944. The people's choice. New York: Duell, Sloane, & Pearce.

::::Most people who vote are doing so for any number of reasons: most of them having to do with partisanship, the economic performance of the previous 18 months, and pervious voting patterns. Honestly, it makes sense, you would never have voted for Obama no matter when you voted, and most people who voted for President made their decision a long time ago. The fact of the matter remains, candidates are not a single decision such as in a trial, but part of a continuum of partisan decisions, with very few exceptions.

::::I should also point out that the study does confirm that traits such as leadership, morals, and other valeus doe matter, but only as far as third party candidates, and very rarely for the Democrat-Republican paradigm. I would also concede that the findings of the first study find minimal difference by major campaigns can tip elections in a very divided electorate, but I would also argue that this does not change the fact that the people who are voting early are the people who are most ideologically driven and therefore less likely to fall into the small group affected by the elections. [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Talk:Early voting

2012-11-23T02:56:54Z

SteveSpagnola: /* How exactly does it disenfranchise? */

== Voter intimidation ==

The page says that early voting "facilitates voter intimidation, particularly by unions and large employers that try to increase turnout by their people." Could someone please explain this? As I understand it, the ballot is still secret, and voters are free to spoil their ballot without anyone knowing. I personally think that increased ''lawful'' participation in democracy makes our government better. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:04, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

:Studies show that overall turnout is not increased by early voting. If anything, it detracts from the respect of Election Day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::You did not answer the question. How does early voting "facilitate voter intimidation." ?

:::It's obvious: union bosses and employers tell the rank and file to vote early, and may even drive them to the polls. That is not voting free from all intimidation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::The only intimidation I can see that's unique to early voting is pressuring voters to make up their minds before Election Day. The practice of employers or churches bus their employees or parishoners to the polls could just as easily be done on Election Day itself. So, to the extent that such practices are bad, I don't see how that is caused by extending early voting or no-fault absentee voting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:51, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

==Need sources==
An encyclopedia article needs to be more than personal opinion and should have sources. The sentence, "The less the early voting, the more integrity there is in the process, and the more likely it is the Republican candidate will win.:" is not necessarily true and is certainly not true over a long period of time. But there is no caveat as to what time period is address. The only text reference is to the year 2010. I can think of states where early voting was disproportionately for the Republican candidate. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:01, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:I'll look for cites, but the truth of the statement is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::It is not self-evident nor universally applicable. Suppose there is a state with a popular Republican US Senator who is polling at 70%. He will get 70% of the early vote. If there is a hurricane on election day and only very few hard core supporters vote on that day, he may get only 50% of election day votes. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:19, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
:::"The truth of the statement is self-evident." That's a great way to avoid having to back up assertions with empirical data. Have you ever tried that on a judge? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 10:23, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

::::Folks, do you look for cites on the internet? They are not hard to find, and I've just added two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::Well, you have some anecdotal evidence, nothing that suggests a wider pattern, but it's a start, so that's an improvement. Next time, don't wait for people to beg you for citations. Learn how to make and document an argument properly. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:::::::How about looking first on the internet, before complaining? The statements about the defects in early voting are logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Thank you for your copy edit of my copy edit. Much better. However 7 p.m. + 7 hours = 2 a.m. not 4 a.m. I still believe that generalizations need to be limited to "in 2012" or "in Colorado" etc. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:36, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Depending on the state (for instance, early votes cast in Florida tend to buck the trend by being overwhelmingly Republican), a quick glance over some sources does lead me to reluctantly agree with Andy that early voting does tend to give a ''slight'' advantage to Democratic candidates (enough to sway the results of a '''close''' election). This is because the demographics most likely to vote early are the elderly (who usually vote Republican), racial minorities (who usually vote for Democrats), and blue collar workers (who also trend towards the Democrats). Given the reasons most often cited for voting early, which are convenience, having to work on election day, and having already decided who to vote for, this is not particularly surprising. It does not, however, appear that this is has anything to do with voter intimidation or any other underhanded tactics; its just the nature of the process. (here are links to the sources I looked over, [http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/archives/2010/EarlyVotingReport.pdf link 1], [http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/earlyvotingfull/report5.pdf link 2], [http://www.leonvotes.org/?page=Maps%20and%20Demographics/VoterDemographics.asp link 3], [http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html link 4]. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 09:33, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:You're either assuming that those people would somehow vote otherwise if they waited until election day or advocating that citizens--and last I checked, Democrats are still citizens--should be denied the franchise because it just so happens that a particular voting pattern tends to get out one party's votes in a particular way. What's the next step on that slope? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 09:50, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, restrictive voter ID laws like those in Texas and (before it was essentially gutted of its worst elements by the state during the preclearance process) South Carolina. Also, restrictions on voter registration as found in Texas and Florida. But this is just my opinion. Regardless, I think making it easier for eligible voters to exercise the franchise is something to be commended, not condemned. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:41, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:::There is nothing inherently "Republican" about those demographics or about the pros and cons of early voting. The impact of early voting depends on the relative popularity of the candidates. We should not present these statements as timeless truths, when there are so many variables. What is a good strategy for Republicans like Arnold S in California or Paul Ryan in Wisconsin will not apply to Michele Bachmann in Minnesota. Our readers (including teenagers) are counting on us to give them a straight-forward article on early voting. Saying it helps Republicans or Democrats is far removed from the essence of the idea of early voting, because it depends on who are the candidates and the nature of the jurisdiction. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:45, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

::::Early voting infringes on the right not to vote. For example, it subjects union workers to repeated harassment over a period of days or weeks until they vote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::That is not a result of "early voting" but rather of the state laws that give political parties access to the list of people who vote early or absentee. In a jurisdiction that allow early voting and keeps the list secret, there is no possibility of organized follow through. The ''Wall Street Journal'' recently ran an article on corporations where management told their workers how to vote, including statements that if the wrong candidates won, they might have to shut the plant. So, harassment goes both ways. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:56, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::Plus, if a voter decides that they don't want to vote, he or she can always spoil the ballot. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:50, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

What effect will [[Hurricane Sandy]] have on [[early voting]]? Will it sway the result toward one candidate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:53, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
: I have added Gov. McDonnell's request to expand in-person absentee polling hours in Virginia. There may be similar moves in other states. The storm has shifted campaign schedules and GOTV efforts. Thank goodness none of the candidates have tried to blame the storm on their opponent. With the power out, the bombardment of negative television adds and [[robocall]]s has ceased. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:45, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

==Additional States and voter rolls==
It is my understanding that Oregon and Washington only allow voting by mail--if so, wouldn't they qualify as states which allow early voting? Also, it is my understanding that all states provide lists of citizens who have voted in each election, so wouldn't that also allow intimidation?

Since making these edits would constitute "substantial changes" I thought it wise to discuss them here first.

Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:56, 13 November 2012 (EST)

:Yes, you're right. Oregon and Washington are 100% early voting ... and as result it is virtually impossible for a Republican to win there. Please add your good suggested edits to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 13 November 2012 (EST)
::The problem is that they are not "swing states" or "battle ground states" so that they do not belong in this particular table. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:18, 15 November 2012 (EST)
::: You are correct that they are not swing states, though I hope that instead of burring information on Washington and Oregon at the bottom of the article, we could expand the table since the article is about early voting and not early voting in swing states. Also, for the record, I disagree with your use of quotes around early voting in that section since ever vote that is cast before election day is, by definition, early. In line with this common sense approach, I will edit that contribution accordingly. '''EDITED TO ADD''':I see that you also removed a line noting that all states release lists of those who voted after an election. This information is correct, and was discussed prior to insertion on this talk page. Since you removed it without discussion, am editing the article to re-include it--pending your response. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:44, 15 November 2012 (EST)
:It is true that most (if not all) states make the list of registered voters available after the election, including whether the particular voter participated in the primary or general election. It is also true that many states make list of early voters or absentee voters available during the period before election day, which will allow campaigns to taylor their voter contacts in light of who has already voted and who has not. Neither of these is necessarily related to voter intimidation. For example, a campaign might want to contact past voters on the assumption that they are more likely to vote in the next election as well. Similarly, if a campaign knows that someone has already voted early, then the campaign will not waste time or money contacting them again in its GOTV efforts. While making such data public is specified in various state laws, the fact that it is public is not evidence that voter intimidation in fact occurs. If an argument is being constructed that there is voter intimidation of early voters, then the fact that the list of all voters is also made public after the election is completely irrelevant to the argument. Thanks for all that you do for CP. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:31, 15 November 2012 (EST)
:Please respect the difference between "early voting", "convenience voting", "absentee voting" and "postal voting." Political scientists have assigned exact definitions to each. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:33, 15 November 2012 (EST)
::Thank you for your informative post. I have reviewed the literature over the past few days (you may be interested to know I hold a political science degree, although I am not an americanist). I would merely note that the literature does not draw such black and white lines--for example, Burden et al, include postal voting and no excuse absentee voting as examples of early voting. ''Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout:The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform, 2010'' That said I will respect your edits. I would encourage you to consider the level at which this project is written--that is, how useful is graduate level term definition? One final topic: you'll note that my edit regarding state voter rolls never speculated as to the purpose of releasing the information, merely that such information was released. You must have been thinking of a later section regarding impacts. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:13, 18 November 2012 (EST)

== re: claim that early voting undermines voter ID ==

I reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Early_voting&diff=1018436&oldid=1018367 this edit] because it does not have a solid factual basis. First of all, some of the early voting states listed in the article do not even have voter ID laws in effect (Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina). Second of all, some strict photo ID states like Georgia have no-excuse absentee balloting as a failsafe to prevent disenfranchisement of voters who may otherwise like photo ID. ''See'' ''Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups'', 504 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1379 (2007). Finally, the edit ignores laws of states like Illinois, which require early voters (such as Obama this election) to present ID, but not Election Day voters. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:32, 13 November 2012 (EST)

'''EDITED TO ADD''': Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Georgia's 2005 photo ID act (HB 244, Act 53) also instituted no-excuse absentee voting. Additionally, from my reading of the trial documents in ''South Carolina v. U.S.'', the supporters of photo voter ID saw no-excuse absentee voting as a concession that could be offered to secure compromise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:59, 13 November 2012 (EST)

== How exactly does it disenfranchise? ==

If the process is entirely voluntary and allows people to vote who otherwise might not be able to do, how is it in any way hindering others from voting? Is it somehow more sacrosanct to vote a month later? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:05, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:Not "more sancrosanct," but more informed to vote on [[Election Day]]. If 99% of the electorate vote early before campaigns are over, then the conscientious voter who does his due diligence by voting on Election Day has been disenfranchised from his vote being meaningful. To the extent early voting is less than 99%, the degree of disenfranchisement scales accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::You keep claiming that those who vote on Election Day are more informed, but that's hogwash. Campaigns are largely meaningless, you know who you are going to vote for by and large before the conventions. Anyone who hasn't formed an opinion by the time most early voting takes place probably isn't paying close enough attention to make an informed choice by the time Election Day rolls around. And really, how many of those who vote early are going to change their mind? I would probably say almost none, and therefore it's hardly "disenfranchising" for the results to be moved up a month. Seriously, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that large swaths of people change their minds in September and October. For the VAST majority (I can confidently say at least 80-90 percent) the decision isn't changing, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote early? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:34, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:::Due diligence requires awaiting completion of presentation of the "evidence" - i.e., campaigns. Jurors who keep their mind open until the end are performing their duty better than those who rush to judgment early. Voters certainly do change their mind just prior to Election Day; polls confirm that millions remain undecided until they cast their votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::::Yeah, no, that argument fails on so many levels, most importantly in that a candidate's major goals and beliefs have long since been outlined long before election day. The difference between October and November is a month of gaffes and attack ads that don't sway anyone.

::::See: Luks , Samantha, Joanne Miller, and Lawrence Jacobs . "Who Wins? Campaigns and the Third Party Vote." Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33.1 (2003): 9-30.

::::Lazarsfeld, Paul, Bernard Berelson, and Helen Gaudet. 1944. The people's choice. New York: Duell, Sloane, & Pearce.

::::Most people who vote are doing so for any number of reasons: most of them having to do with partisanship, the economic performance of the previous 18 months, and pervious voting patterns. Honestly, it makes sense, you would never have voted for Obama no matter when you voted, and most people who voted for President made their decision a long time ago. The fact of the matter remains, candidates are not a single decision such as in a trial, but part of a continuum of partisan decisions, with very few exceptions.

::::I should also point out that the study does confirm that traits such as leadership, morals, and other valeus doe matter, but only as far as third party candidates, and very rarely for the Democrat-Republican paradigm. [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Talk:Early voting

2012-11-23T02:46:57Z

SteveSpagnola: /* How exactly does it disenfranchise? */

== Voter intimidation ==

The page says that early voting "facilitates voter intimidation, particularly by unions and large employers that try to increase turnout by their people." Could someone please explain this? As I understand it, the ballot is still secret, and voters are free to spoil their ballot without anyone knowing. I personally think that increased ''lawful'' participation in democracy makes our government better. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:04, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

:Studies show that overall turnout is not increased by early voting. If anything, it detracts from the respect of Election Day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::You did not answer the question. How does early voting "facilitate voter intimidation." ?

:::It's obvious: union bosses and employers tell the rank and file to vote early, and may even drive them to the polls. That is not voting free from all intimidation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::The only intimidation I can see that's unique to early voting is pressuring voters to make up their minds before Election Day. The practice of employers or churches bus their employees or parishoners to the polls could just as easily be done on Election Day itself. So, to the extent that such practices are bad, I don't see how that is caused by extending early voting or no-fault absentee voting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:51, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

==Need sources==
An encyclopedia article needs to be more than personal opinion and should have sources. The sentence, "The less the early voting, the more integrity there is in the process, and the more likely it is the Republican candidate will win.:" is not necessarily true and is certainly not true over a long period of time. But there is no caveat as to what time period is address. The only text reference is to the year 2010. I can think of states where early voting was disproportionately for the Republican candidate. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:01, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:I'll look for cites, but the truth of the statement is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::It is not self-evident nor universally applicable. Suppose there is a state with a popular Republican US Senator who is polling at 70%. He will get 70% of the early vote. If there is a hurricane on election day and only very few hard core supporters vote on that day, he may get only 50% of election day votes. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:19, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
:::"The truth of the statement is self-evident." That's a great way to avoid having to back up assertions with empirical data. Have you ever tried that on a judge? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 10:23, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

::::Folks, do you look for cites on the internet? They are not hard to find, and I've just added two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::Well, you have some anecdotal evidence, nothing that suggests a wider pattern, but it's a start, so that's an improvement. Next time, don't wait for people to beg you for citations. Learn how to make and document an argument properly. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:::::::How about looking first on the internet, before complaining? The statements about the defects in early voting are logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Thank you for your copy edit of my copy edit. Much better. However 7 p.m. + 7 hours = 2 a.m. not 4 a.m. I still believe that generalizations need to be limited to "in 2012" or "in Colorado" etc. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:36, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Depending on the state (for instance, early votes cast in Florida tend to buck the trend by being overwhelmingly Republican), a quick glance over some sources does lead me to reluctantly agree with Andy that early voting does tend to give a ''slight'' advantage to Democratic candidates (enough to sway the results of a '''close''' election). This is because the demographics most likely to vote early are the elderly (who usually vote Republican), racial minorities (who usually vote for Democrats), and blue collar workers (who also trend towards the Democrats). Given the reasons most often cited for voting early, which are convenience, having to work on election day, and having already decided who to vote for, this is not particularly surprising. It does not, however, appear that this is has anything to do with voter intimidation or any other underhanded tactics; its just the nature of the process. (here are links to the sources I looked over, [http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/archives/2010/EarlyVotingReport.pdf link 1], [http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/earlyvotingfull/report5.pdf link 2], [http://www.leonvotes.org/?page=Maps%20and%20Demographics/VoterDemographics.asp link 3], [http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html link 4]. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 09:33, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:You're either assuming that those people would somehow vote otherwise if they waited until election day or advocating that citizens--and last I checked, Democrats are still citizens--should be denied the franchise because it just so happens that a particular voting pattern tends to get out one party's votes in a particular way. What's the next step on that slope? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 09:50, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, restrictive voter ID laws like those in Texas and (before it was essentially gutted of its worst elements by the state during the preclearance process) South Carolina. Also, restrictions on voter registration as found in Texas and Florida. But this is just my opinion. Regardless, I think making it easier for eligible voters to exercise the franchise is something to be commended, not condemned. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:41, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:::There is nothing inherently "Republican" about those demographics or about the pros and cons of early voting. The impact of early voting depends on the relative popularity of the candidates. We should not present these statements as timeless truths, when there are so many variables. What is a good strategy for Republicans like Arnold S in California or Paul Ryan in Wisconsin will not apply to Michele Bachmann in Minnesota. Our readers (including teenagers) are counting on us to give them a straight-forward article on early voting. Saying it helps Republicans or Democrats is far removed from the essence of the idea of early voting, because it depends on who are the candidates and the nature of the jurisdiction. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:45, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

::::Early voting infringes on the right not to vote. For example, it subjects union workers to repeated harassment over a period of days or weeks until they vote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::That is not a result of "early voting" but rather of the state laws that give political parties access to the list of people who vote early or absentee. In a jurisdiction that allow early voting and keeps the list secret, there is no possibility of organized follow through. The ''Wall Street Journal'' recently ran an article on corporations where management told their workers how to vote, including statements that if the wrong candidates won, they might have to shut the plant. So, harassment goes both ways. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:56, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::Plus, if a voter decides that they don't want to vote, he or she can always spoil the ballot. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:50, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

What effect will [[Hurricane Sandy]] have on [[early voting]]? Will it sway the result toward one candidate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:53, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
: I have added Gov. McDonnell's request to expand in-person absentee polling hours in Virginia. There may be similar moves in other states. The storm has shifted campaign schedules and GOTV efforts. Thank goodness none of the candidates have tried to blame the storm on their opponent. With the power out, the bombardment of negative television adds and [[robocall]]s has ceased. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:45, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

==Additional States and voter rolls==
It is my understanding that Oregon and Washington only allow voting by mail--if so, wouldn't they qualify as states which allow early voting? Also, it is my understanding that all states provide lists of citizens who have voted in each election, so wouldn't that also allow intimidation?

Since making these edits would constitute "substantial changes" I thought it wise to discuss them here first.

Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:56, 13 November 2012 (EST)

:Yes, you're right. Oregon and Washington are 100% early voting ... and as result it is virtually impossible for a Republican to win there. Please add your good suggested edits to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 13 November 2012 (EST)
::The problem is that they are not "swing states" or "battle ground states" so that they do not belong in this particular table. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:18, 15 November 2012 (EST)
::: You are correct that they are not swing states, though I hope that instead of burring information on Washington and Oregon at the bottom of the article, we could expand the table since the article is about early voting and not early voting in swing states. Also, for the record, I disagree with your use of quotes around early voting in that section since ever vote that is cast before election day is, by definition, early. In line with this common sense approach, I will edit that contribution accordingly. '''EDITED TO ADD''':I see that you also removed a line noting that all states release lists of those who voted after an election. This information is correct, and was discussed prior to insertion on this talk page. Since you removed it without discussion, am editing the article to re-include it--pending your response. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:44, 15 November 2012 (EST)
:It is true that most (if not all) states make the list of registered voters available after the election, including whether the particular voter participated in the primary or general election. It is also true that many states make list of early voters or absentee voters available during the period before election day, which will allow campaigns to taylor their voter contacts in light of who has already voted and who has not. Neither of these is necessarily related to voter intimidation. For example, a campaign might want to contact past voters on the assumption that they are more likely to vote in the next election as well. Similarly, if a campaign knows that someone has already voted early, then the campaign will not waste time or money contacting them again in its GOTV efforts. While making such data public is specified in various state laws, the fact that it is public is not evidence that voter intimidation in fact occurs. If an argument is being constructed that there is voter intimidation of early voters, then the fact that the list of all voters is also made public after the election is completely irrelevant to the argument. Thanks for all that you do for CP. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:31, 15 November 2012 (EST)
:Please respect the difference between "early voting", "convenience voting", "absentee voting" and "postal voting." Political scientists have assigned exact definitions to each. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:33, 15 November 2012 (EST)
::Thank you for your informative post. I have reviewed the literature over the past few days (you may be interested to know I hold a political science degree, although I am not an americanist). I would merely note that the literature does not draw such black and white lines--for example, Burden et al, include postal voting and no excuse absentee voting as examples of early voting. ''Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout:The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform, 2010'' That said I will respect your edits. I would encourage you to consider the level at which this project is written--that is, how useful is graduate level term definition? One final topic: you'll note that my edit regarding state voter rolls never speculated as to the purpose of releasing the information, merely that such information was released. You must have been thinking of a later section regarding impacts. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:13, 18 November 2012 (EST)

== re: claim that early voting undermines voter ID ==

I reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Early_voting&diff=1018436&oldid=1018367 this edit] because it does not have a solid factual basis. First of all, some of the early voting states listed in the article do not even have voter ID laws in effect (Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina). Second of all, some strict photo ID states like Georgia have no-excuse absentee balloting as a failsafe to prevent disenfranchisement of voters who may otherwise like photo ID. ''See'' ''Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups'', 504 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1379 (2007). Finally, the edit ignores laws of states like Illinois, which require early voters (such as Obama this election) to present ID, but not Election Day voters. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:32, 13 November 2012 (EST)

'''EDITED TO ADD''': Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Georgia's 2005 photo ID act (HB 244, Act 53) also instituted no-excuse absentee voting. Additionally, from my reading of the trial documents in ''South Carolina v. U.S.'', the supporters of photo voter ID saw no-excuse absentee voting as a concession that could be offered to secure compromise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:59, 13 November 2012 (EST)

== How exactly does it disenfranchise? ==

If the process is entirely voluntary and allows people to vote who otherwise might not be able to do, how is it in any way hindering others from voting? Is it somehow more sacrosanct to vote a month later? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:05, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:Not "more sancrosanct," but more informed to vote on [[Election Day]]. If 99% of the electorate vote early before campaigns are over, then the conscientious voter who does his due diligence by voting on Election Day has been disenfranchised from his vote being meaningful. To the extent early voting is less than 99%, the degree of disenfranchisement scales accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::You keep claiming that those who vote on Election Day are more informed, but that's hogwash. Campaigns are largely meaningless, you know who you are going to vote for by and large before the conventions. Anyone who hasn't formed an opinion by the time most early voting takes place probably isn't paying close enough attention to make an informed choice by the time Election Day rolls around. And really, how many of those who vote early are going to change their mind? I would probably say almost none, and therefore it's hardly "disenfranchising" for the results to be moved up a month. Seriously, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that large swaths of people change their minds in September and October. For the VAST majority (I can confidently say at least 80-90 percent) the decision isn't changing, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote early? [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:34, 22 November 2012 (EST)

:::Due diligence requires awaiting completion of presentation of the "evidence" - i.e., campaigns. Jurors who keep their mind open until the end are performing their duty better than those who rush to judgment early. Voters certainly do change their mind just prior to Election Day; polls confirm that millions remain undecided until they cast their votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::::Yeah, no, that argument fails on so many levels, most importantly in that a candidate's major goals and beliefs have long since been outlined long before election day. The difference between October and November is a month of gaffes and attack ads that don't sway anyone.

::::See: Luks , Samantha, Joanne Miller, and Lawrence Jacobs . "Who Wins? Campaigns and the Third Party Vote." Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33.1 (2003): 9-30.

::::Lazarsfeld, Paul, Bernard Berelson, and Helen Gaudet. 1944. The people's choice. New York: Duell, Sloane, & Pearce.

::::Most people who vote are doing so for any number of reasons: most of them having to do with partisanship, the economic performance of the previous 18 months, and pervious voting patterns. Honestly, it makes sense, you would never have voted for Obama no matter when you voted, and most people who voted for President made their decision a long time ago. The fact of the matter remains, candidates are not a single decision such as in a trial, but part of a continuum of partisan decisions, with very few exceptions. [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 21:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Talk:Early voting

2012-11-23T02:34:31Z

SteveSpagnola: /* How exactly does it disenfranchise? */

Talk:Early voting

2012-11-23T02:05:26Z

SteveSpagnola: /* How exactly does it disenfranchise? */ new section

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-11-18T00:04:53Z

SteveSpagnola: Undo revision 1019042 by MorganP (talk)

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant, who outscored James and Bryant in the Olympics
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills. Has chosen the celebrity lifestyle over true sports greatness.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Barry Bonds]] - all his baseball records were due to his extensive use of steroids.
#[[Alex Sanchez]] - same as Bonds.
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] - he ''"won"'' the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times due to “''the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen''”.
#[[Tim Tebow]] Despite success at the collegiate level, his style of play has translated to only modest NFL success. The accuracy of his throws are suspect, and he does not make good football decisions. Demoted from starter by Jet's coaching staff.
#[[Jeremy Lin]] "Linsanity" took hold of nation as a result of point guard who, by all accounts, is above average, but not one of the league's elite. His FG percentage and scoring were inflated with the lack of Carmello Anthony, and he had a knack for turning the ball over in the play-offs.
(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Talk:Free Enterprise

2012-11-17T06:33:04Z

SteveSpagnola: Created page with "Please, unions are not contrary to Free Enterprise, they represent a recognition by workers that labor is a commodity and so they attempt to establish a way to effectively market..."

Please, unions are not contrary to Free Enterprise, they represent a recognition by workers that labor is a commodity and so they attempt to establish a way to effectively market labor. [[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 01:33, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Same-sex marriage

2012-11-17T02:34:39Z

SteveSpagnola:

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage, contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]] and most other religious teachings.<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex marriage now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]].</ref> Other measures that are supported by religious teachings and that are millenia old that ended up being changed include slavery, the idea of women as property of men, and persecution of religious minorities.

In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex marriage has led to a lot of happy gay people, which we cannot abide. In [[Massachusetts]], the imposition of same-sex marriage lasted just four years before the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Also in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife, because as well all know, gay people should refer to each other as husband and wife.

In May 2012, voters in [[North Carolina]] banned both same-sex marriage and gay unions. North Carolina thereby became the 29th state to pass an [[amendment]] against gay marriage, by a huge 61-39% margin.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/north-carolina-voters-ban-gay-marriage-civil-unions/story?id=16307081#.T6nLvOjlvKY</ref> [[Barack Obama]] -- heavily dependent on gay donations for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Various detailed polls and studies about same-sex marriage conducted in several countries generally show that support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education, and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> Prior to 2012, in each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, In 2012, [[Maine]]. [[Washington]] and [[Maryland]] voted in favor of same-sex marriage. Addditionally, recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref>

Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same moral plane as [[heterosexuality]], overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were would keep their (according to many Christians) sinful acts hidden. Some opponents of marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

Current [[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social [[conservatives]] regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Some social liberals try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially-conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies, the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony,"<ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex "marriage,"'' with quotation marks around the word "marriage," to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists. They argue that heterosexual people are allowed to marry and so the homosexual population should be given that right too.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and nine, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]] and [[Iowa]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. Washington later legalized same-sex marriage. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[Washington, D.C.]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. Once signed by the Mayor, the bill went to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it passed and became law in 2010.

The New York legislature voted for same-sex marriage on June 24, 2011.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-gay-marriage-passes-in-new-york</ref>

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in eleven countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], and [[Denmark]]. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in the state of [[Quintana Roo]] and in [[Mexico City]], a federal district similar to Washington, D.C. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</ref>

In Israel, all marriages must be performed by a religious organization - there is no "civil" marriage. Specific religions may determine the definition of marriages that they perform, and none currently recognize same-sex couples. However, a Supreme Court decision determined that Israel must recognize all marriages performed outside the country, same-sex or opposite-sex. In September of 2011, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Israel attempted to marry homosexual males to homosexual females so they could start a conventional family. However, the plan drew criticism both from liberals, who said the plan was meant to discourage homosexuality, and from conservatives, who argued the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

In the Netherlands overseas territories of [[Aruba]], [[Curacao]], and [[Sint Maarten]], same-sex marriages are not performed, but all marriages performed in the mainland portion of the country (including same-sex) are recognized. In [[Brazil]], same-sex civil unions can be converted to marriages by state judges on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the state of [[Rhode Island]] recognizes, but does not perform, same-sex marriages. Furthermore, [[California]] recognizes all same-sex marriages performed in or out of state before the passage of [[Proposition 8]].

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref> In Conservative Judaism (no relation to the political philosophy known as "conservatism"), synagogues and rabbis are allowed, but not required, to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Reform Judaism also allows rabbis to use "good faith" on this issue, but as the least-religious branch of Judaism, they take this stance on most issues. Additionally, homosexuality (and by extension same-sex marriage) is forbidden in [[Islam]].

Many [[libertarian]]s argue [[marriage privatization|eliminating any legal definition of "marriage"]] and simply granting legal benefits to all couples under a neutral name would solve this problem and satisfy both sides. This is called "marriage privatization". Many religious conservatives still feel this is unacceptable - see that article for more details.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Motivation for advocating it==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

Homosexuals are beginning to admit they want what Mollenkott proposes, namely the destruction of the concept of [[monogamy]] and [[traditional marriage]] altogether. What they really are after is a society that recognizes every sexual arrangement as normal - even [[group sex]]ual liaisons and [[polygamy]].<ref name=pjones>
Peter Jones, ''The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality'', page 22</ref>

==Child-rearing and adoption==

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status or sex. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex marriage.

==Homosexual promiscuity==

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref>

==Homosexual violence and abuse==

In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders{{fact}} (see [[Homosexuality and Murders]]). The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==Family breakdown ==

Bishop Harry Jackson has shown how same-sex "marriage" is causally linked to the breakdown of the family in recent decades, particularly the black family.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2008/10/13/the_naacp_abandons_the_black_family The NAACP Abandons the Black Family]</ref> As noted in the 1965 [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan|Moynihan]] Report,<ref>[http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm The Negro Family: The Case for National Action]</ref> the breakdown of the African-American family is a national concern. He has attributed support for same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and Maryland to a demonic force called the [[Queen of Heaven]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GMnaW-0rQ-U Harry Jackson, Cindy Jacobs Rally Against Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

Subsequent to same-sex marriage becoming law in [[Massachusetts]], property values declined and many left the State, in contrast to those states that do not recognize it.

One study, however, claims that the children of same-sex couples or gay parents have equal or higher scores in psychological evaluations as well as cognitive. Researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco, and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, led a study focused on planned lesbian families in which a lesbian couple had chosen to adopt children or undergo artificial insemination to start a family. These children were shown to have higher self esteems and confidence which in turn enabled them to have higher test results academically than their straight-parent counterparts. <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html],Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers</ref>

==Social dysfunction==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" is correlated with social dysfunctions<ref>[http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm Same Sex Marriage Countries]</ref> that states and countries banning it have avoided. States and countries legalizing same-sex "marriage" have markedly different levels of quality of life from those that have banned it.

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed as a result, while some that refused to recognize it escaped that fate.<ref>[http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Slippery-Slope-Of-Same-Sex-Marriage&id=824855 The Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage]</ref> However, [[Correlation is not causation]], and there is not even a large enough data set to get a correlation.

==Legal disadvantages for heterosexuals==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" would confer [[special rights]] on homosexuals, thereby placing heterosexuals at a legal disadvantage.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/New-Jersey-Lawmakers-Drop-Same-Sex-Marriage-Bill/ New Jersey Lawmakers Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill], from [[CBN]]</ref>

The fact that the strongest predictor of support for same-sex "marriage" is level of education<ref>[http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090902/ARTICLES/909021016?p=1&tc=pg UF study: Education best predicted support for gay marriage ban]</ref> shows that [[brainwashing]] into [[professor values]] has a corrosive effect on morality.

According to Bill Borst, a regular substitute radio host for conservative [[Phyllis Schlafly]] on WSIV, rights are a [[zero-sum game]].<ref>[http://bbprof.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-new-three-rs/ The New Three R's], by Bill Borst</ref>. If this is true, granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Same-sex marriage

2012-11-17T02:31:53Z

SteveSpagnola:

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage, contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]] and most other religious teachings.<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex marriage now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]].</ref> Other measures that are supported by religious teachings and that are millenia old that ended up being changed include slavery, the idea of women as property of men, and persecution of religious minorities.

In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex marriage has led to a loss in respect for the marriage institution itself even for traditional couples. In [[Massachusetts]], the imposition of same-sex marriage led to a decline in property values and an exodus from the state by many. Also in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife.

In May 2012, voters in [[North Carolina]] banned both same-sex marriage and gay unions. North Carolina thereby became the 29th state to pass an [[amendment]] against gay marriage, by a huge 61-39% margin.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/north-carolina-voters-ban-gay-marriage-civil-unions/story?id=16307081#.T6nLvOjlvKY</ref> [[Barack Obama]] -- heavily dependent on gay donations for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Various detailed polls and studies about same-sex marriage conducted in several countries generally show that support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education, and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> Prior to 2012, in each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, In 2012, [[Maine]]. [[Washington]] and [[Maryland]] voted in favor of same-sex marriage. Addditionally, recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref>

Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same moral plane as [[heterosexuality]], overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were would keep their (according to many Christians) sinful acts hidden. Some opponents of marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

Current [[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social [[conservatives]] regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Some social liberals try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially-conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies, the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony,"<ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex "marriage,"'' with quotation marks around the word "marriage," to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists. They argue that heterosexual people are allowed to marry and so the homosexual population should be given that right too.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and nine, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]] and [[Iowa]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. Washington later legalized same-sex marriage. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[Washington, D.C.]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. Once signed by the Mayor, the bill went to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it passed and became law in 2010.

The New York legislature voted for same-sex marriage on June 24, 2011.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-gay-marriage-passes-in-new-york</ref>

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in eleven countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], and [[Denmark]]. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in the state of [[Quintana Roo]] and in [[Mexico City]], a federal district similar to Washington, D.C. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</ref>

In Israel, all marriages must be performed by a religious organization - there is no "civil" marriage. Specific religions may determine the definition of marriages that they perform, and none currently recognize same-sex couples. However, a Supreme Court decision determined that Israel must recognize all marriages performed outside the country, same-sex or opposite-sex. In September of 2011, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Israel attempted to marry homosexual males to homosexual females so they could start a conventional family. However, the plan drew criticism both from liberals, who said the plan was meant to discourage homosexuality, and from conservatives, who argued the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

In the Netherlands overseas territories of [[Aruba]], [[Curacao]], and [[Sint Maarten]], same-sex marriages are not performed, but all marriages performed in the mainland portion of the country (including same-sex) are recognized. In [[Brazil]], same-sex civil unions can be converted to marriages by state judges on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the state of [[Rhode Island]] recognizes, but does not perform, same-sex marriages. Furthermore, [[California]] recognizes all same-sex marriages performed in or out of state before the passage of [[Proposition 8]].

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref> In Conservative Judaism (no relation to the political philosophy known as "conservatism"), synagogues and rabbis are allowed, but not required, to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Reform Judaism also allows rabbis to use "good faith" on this issue, but as the least-religious branch of Judaism, they take this stance on most issues. Additionally, homosexuality (and by extension same-sex marriage) is forbidden in [[Islam]].

Many [[libertarian]]s argue [[marriage privatization|eliminating any legal definition of "marriage"]] and simply granting legal benefits to all couples under a neutral name would solve this problem and satisfy both sides. This is called "marriage privatization". Many religious conservatives still feel this is unacceptable - see that article for more details.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Motivation for advocating it==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

Homosexuals are beginning to admit they want what Mollenkott proposes, namely the destruction of the concept of [[monogamy]] and [[traditional marriage]] altogether. What they really are after is a society that recognizes every sexual arrangement as normal - even [[group sex]]ual liaisons and [[polygamy]].<ref name=pjones>
Peter Jones, ''The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality'', page 22</ref>

==Child-rearing and adoption==

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status or sex. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex marriage.

==Homosexual promiscuity==

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref>

==Homosexual violence and abuse==

In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders{{fact}} (see [[Homosexuality and Murders]]). The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==Family breakdown ==

Bishop Harry Jackson has shown how same-sex "marriage" is causally linked to the breakdown of the family in recent decades, particularly the black family.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2008/10/13/the_naacp_abandons_the_black_family The NAACP Abandons the Black Family]</ref> As noted in the 1965 [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan|Moynihan]] Report,<ref>[http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm The Negro Family: The Case for National Action]</ref> the breakdown of the African-American family is a national concern. He has attributed support for same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and Maryland to a demonic force called the [[Queen of Heaven]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GMnaW-0rQ-U Harry Jackson, Cindy Jacobs Rally Against Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

Subsequent to same-sex marriage becoming law in [[Massachusetts]], property values declined and many left the State, in contrast to those states that do not recognize it.

One study, however, claims that the children of same-sex couples or gay parents have equal or higher scores in psychological evaluations as well as cognitive. Researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco, and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, led a study focused on planned lesbian families in which a lesbian couple had chosen to adopt children or undergo artificial insemination to start a family. These children were shown to have higher self esteems and confidence which in turn enabled them to have higher test results academically than their straight-parent counterparts. <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html],Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers</ref>

==Social dysfunction==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" is correlated with social dysfunctions<ref>[http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm Same Sex Marriage Countries]</ref> that states and countries banning it have avoided. States and countries legalizing same-sex "marriage" have markedly different levels of quality of life from those that have banned it.

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed as a result, while some that refused to recognize it escaped that fate.<ref>[http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Slippery-Slope-Of-Same-Sex-Marriage&id=824855 The Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage]</ref> However, [[Correlation is not causation]], and there is not even a large enough data set to get a correlation.

==Legal disadvantages for heterosexuals==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" would confer [[special rights]] on homosexuals, thereby placing heterosexuals at a legal disadvantage.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/New-Jersey-Lawmakers-Drop-Same-Sex-Marriage-Bill/ New Jersey Lawmakers Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill], from [[CBN]]</ref>

The fact that the strongest predictor of support for same-sex "marriage" is level of education<ref>[http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090902/ARTICLES/909021016?p=1&tc=pg UF study: Education best predicted support for gay marriage ban]</ref> shows that [[brainwashing]] into [[professor values]] has a corrosive effect on morality.

According to Bill Borst, a regular substitute radio host for conservative [[Phyllis Schlafly]] on WSIV, rights are a [[zero-sum game]].<ref>[http://bbprof.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-new-three-rs/ The New Three R's], by Bill Borst</ref>. If this is true, granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-11-15T20:25:16Z

SteveSpagnola: These two appear to have been accidentally removed

Central Intelligence Agency

2012-11-15T20:21:20Z

SteveSpagnola: /* Guatemala 1954 */ Was this written by the 1950s CIA?

[[Image:CIA HQ.jpg|thumb|right|The CIA Headquarters]]
The '''Central Intelligence Agency''', or CIA is an intelligence-gathering agency in the [[United States]] government. As the U.S.'s primary [[intelligence agency]], it is responsible for obtaining and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, entities, and persons, and reporting such information to the branches of the U.S. government. The head is the "Director of Central Intelligence" (DCI).

It is also involved in covert [[espionage]] and paramilitary operations in support of its mission to protect the national security of the United States.

Based in Langley, [[Virginia]], the CIA is a widespread organization spanning the globe.

[[Image:CIA Logo.gif|thumb|left|The CIA Seal]]

==History==

===OSS in World War II===
In 1941 President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] was relying on intelligence information provided by British intelligence (and slanted by them to favor their position.) In 1941 he created the '''OSS''' [[Office of Strategic Services]], which was the first independent US intelligence agency. Due to extensive Soviet-Communist penetration,<ref>[http://webroots.org/library/usamisc/oss-cia0.html ''The Office of Strategic Services: America's First Intelligence Agency''], Michael Warner, CIA History Staff, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Published: United States Central Intelligence Agency, 2000. </ref> the OSS was disbanded after the war and its functions were split between the Departments of State and War. A Central Intelligence Group was reorganized in January 1946.<ref>https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/6-12th-grade/operation-history/history-of-the-cia.html#changing-face-of-intelligence</ref>

===CIA established 1947===
in 1944, [[William J. Donovan]], the OSS's head, proposed a new organization directly supervised by the President: "which will procure intelligence both by overt and covert methods and will at the same time provide intelligence guidance, determine national intelligence objectives, and correlate the intelligence material collected by all government agencies." Under Donovan's plan, a powerful, centralized civilian agency would have coordinated all the intelligence services, including those run by the military. He also proposed that this agency have authority to conduct "subversive operations abroad," but "no police or law enforcement functions, either at home or abroad."

In September 1947, the National Security Act of 1947 established both the "National Security Council" and the Central Intelligence Agency. Americans, still mesmerized by the intelligence failure at Pearl Harbor, welcomed the new spy agency because it seemed to promise the nation would always stay on alert. The CIA's Ivy League intellectuals and scions of high society contrasted sharply with the Pentagon brass; an adversarial relationship was born that still sours relations between the two. The CIA's budget was minuscule ($5 million) until NSC-68 in 1950 provided blueprints for an active Cold War.

====Congress====
From the start isolationists warned of the danger that the CIA might become an out-of-control "American Gestapo" like the Nazi secret police, which could trample American civil liberties On the other side was fear of a nuclear Pearl Harbor without warning.

In general Congress defered to the White House until the 1970s on intelligence matters. Only a few members of a few select committees had any legislative oversight; they kept floor debate and written records to a minimum. Congress supported covert action, even though Roscoe Hillenkoetter (DCI 1947-50) and Walter Bedell Smith (DCI 1950-53), both military men, showed little interest. President Eisenhower, by contrast, demanded more covert activities and Allen Dulles (DCI 1953-61) obliged.

Congressional support for more aggressive policies increased throughout the 1950s. Congress took its oversight responsibilities seriously and even challenged the CIA when an alarming intelligence failure, such as when the CIA failed to predict the Soviet acquisition of the atomic bomb (1950), the Korean War (1953), the [[Hungarian uprising]] (1956), or the U-2 downing (1960). Eisenhower discouraged Congressional probes of agency activities, but Dulles, sometimes gained Congressional support by leaking bits of information to influential conngressmen.<ref>David M. Barrett, ''The CIA & Congress: The Untold Story from Truman to Kennedy'' (2005)</ref>

The CIA often functions as a resource to both individual legislators and congressional committees supplying related background and assessment for congressional decision. An example of this is the 1991 referral to the agency by Senator [[Jesse Helms]], ranking member of Minority Staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations, requesting information and verification of information coming from Israel concerning the survival of the passsengers and crew (including Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]) of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], shot down by the Soviets in 1983. Helms wrote his letter [http://www.rescue007.org/helms_letter.htm] to Boris Yelstin requesting the military communications of the shootdown and locations of camps holding suvivors based on the CIA response to his request [http://www.rescue007.org/nance_letter.htm].

===Soviet Estimates===
The CIA began systematic estimates of the Soviet economy during Max Millikan's tenure as the founding director of the Office of Research and Reports (1951-1952). The strategy was to start with an "inventory of ignorance" and then reduce the list of unknowns through successive approximations. Soviet military expenditures were estimated by the "building-block method," which began by estimating the number ships, planes, jeeps, barracks and even soldiers in use, then estimating the procurement and operating costs of each, and adding them up using estimated prices. The building blocks had advantages in that published data on physical units seemed accurate and in any case were easier to verify through covert means. The elaborate reports of the 1990s included almost 1800 such categories. Since the Soviets lackd computers and had rudimentary accounting procedures, the CIA had a better overall picture of Soviet military spending than did the Kremlin. The reports emphasized physical units, realizing that expenditures alone could not predict what sort of military threat in the future would be presented by the Red Army. To estimate costs the CIA used analogs--using Soviet trucks or American tanks, for instance, to estimate the costs of Soviet tanks--and then adjusted for differences in weight and performance. Analog-based data, far shakier than direct-cost data, accounted for over half of earlier estimates, dropping to about one-third by the late 1980s. In the 1960s the CIA increasingly used quantitative techniques, of the sort promoted in American business schools. A crisis in the mid-1970s was caused by as a combination of external pressures, new data (some from a key Russian who defected to the West) and internal works forced a major revision of the defense burden, showing the proportion of of the overall Soviet economy devoted to the military. The crisis sparked heated public debate when the CIA announced that their earlier estimates of Soviet defense spending at 6-8% of GNP was too low by as much as half; the revised estimated burden ranged from 11-13%, indicating a severe economic burden that slowed Soviet growth.<ref> Noel E. Firth and James H. Noren, ''Soviet Defense Spending: A History of CIA Estimates, 1950-1990.'' (1998)</ref>

===Directorate of Science & Technology===
The Directorate of Science & Technology was established to research, create, and manage technical collection disciplines and equipment. Many of its innovations were transferred to other intelligence organizations, or, as they became more overt, to the military services. Albert D. "Bud" Wheeler (1963-66) and Carl E. Duckett (1966-76) built the directorate into a strong component of the CIA and then guided it through its golden age of technical innovation. In contrast, decisions by Ruth David (1995-98) contributed, Richelson (2001) argues, to a decline in the importance and status of the directorate as it lost control over key responsibilities, including the analysis of satellite photography.

Richelson (2001) explains the major DS&T's achievements, especially reconnaissance airplanes and a series of increasingly sophisticated surveillance satellites, with cameras that could photograph Soviet bomber bases and missile sites with startling clarity from orbits deep in space. In 1960, the first effective satellite produced coverage of more than one million square miles, surpassing all previous U-2 photography combined. This imagery revealed that the Soviets had far fewer bombers and (later) [[ICBM|ICBMs]] than the Pentagon expected. The worst-case estimates of the U.S. Air Force proved wildly exaggerated, and the myths of the bomber and missile "gaps" were punctured by empirical data.

===Dulles years 1953-51===
[[Allen Dulles]], who had been a key OSS operations officer in Switzerland during the Second World War, took over from Smith, at a time where US policy was dominated by a containment policy, with serious discussions of roll-back policies going on, especially in the State Department. Dulles enjoyed a high degree of flexibility, as his brother, [[John Foster Dulles]], was simultaneously Secretary of State. Allen Dulles was head of CIA 1953-61.

Allen Dulles became the trusted advisor on what was going to happen in the world to President Eisenhower and to his brother John Foster Dulles. The CIA gathered information and provided written assessments of the capabilities and intentions of all world leaders. Its regular briefings gave each president the sense that he knew exactly what was happening across the globe. Like ingenious prognosticators through the ages, the CIA's predictions seemed highly explicit yet never could quite be pinned down. They failed to predict any of the major surprises of the postwar era. On the other hand, estimates of the performance of the Soviet economy proved much more accurate than the information Moscow itself possessed, and forecast the failure of that economy in the 1980s.

Numerous covert actions were launched to neutralize perceived Communist expansion in Iran and Guatemala. Some of the largest operations were aimed at [[Cuba]] after the coming to power of the communists in early 1960. In 1960-61 the CIA organized Cuban exiles, whose invasion of Cuba failed totally at the [[Bay of Pigs]] invasion.

Dulles devoted 80% of his much enlarged budget ($82 million) to covert (secret) operations to contain Communism. On the other side was the Soviet [[KGB]]. The head of the K.G.B.'s first chief directorate, Leonid Shabarshin later explained, "The essence of the KGB's active undertakings was to inflict political and moral damage on our basic opponent, the United States. . . . [so] We compromised political figures, organs of the press, and Americans whose activities were in some way unwelcome [to the Soviets]." The KGB veteran revealed that every "active measure" against the enemies of the Soviet Union abroad was submitted by KGB to the Politburo “and was implemented only with its permission. The results of the action were also reported to the Politburo."<ref> See [http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.139/news_detail.asp Herbert Romerstein, "Divide and Conquer: The KGB disinformation campaign against Ukrainians and Jews," ''Ukrainian Quarterly'' Fall 2004 online edition]</ref> Which side performed better remains an open question. CIA money subsidized anti-communist intellectuals and strengthened liberal political parties across Europe and the Third World. Striking low-cost successes early on reinforced the CIA's mastermind image. CIA-supported parties defeated the Communists in Italy and France in the late 1940s. A handful of agents provided assistance to opposition groups which forced anti-American prime ministers out of office in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954). CIA counterintelligence tried to neutralize the KGB and other hostile agencies, like the GRU (Soviet military intelligence), Communist East Germany's [[Stasi]] and Cuba's DGI.

===Early Operations===
The principal problem facing the first generation of covert operators was murky objectives. Was covert action designed merely to "contain" the Soviet Union or to "roll it back?" Covert operations were handled by the CIA's "Office of Policy Coordination" (OPC). There was confusion on its mission OPC --was it merely to stir up trouble behind the Iron Curtain or to "liberate" and [[rollback]] the Kremlin's Eastern European satellites? One early covert operation was a total failure in Albania, where the OPC worked with Britain's [[MI6]] to train and deploy anti-communist commandos committed to overthrowing the Soviet-backed regime of Enver Hoxha. Frank Wisner, the first OPC director, regarded the Albanian operation as "a clinical experiment to see whether larger rollback operations would be feasible elsewhere," but [[Kim Philby]], a Soviet mole inside MI6, leaked the details to the Kremlin, with ghastly results for the anti-Hoxha forces.

====Iran 1953====
Prime Minister [[Mohammed Mossadegh]], originally elected in one of the Shah's elections, had driven out the Shah and become the de facto dictator of Iran, as he dissolved the Parliament and abolished free elections with a secret ballot, after declaring victory in a referendum where he claimed 99.9% of the vote.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter2.html | title=Trying to Persuade a Reluctant Shah | work=The New York Times}}</ref> He gained power through organized terrorism and received funding from the [[KGB]].<ref>http://jebhemelli.net/mossadegh/mossaddegh_1951m_of_y%20Page%202.htm ''Time'' article from 1951 on Mossadegh's seizure of power</ref> Suppressing widespread discontent, as recounted in a 2003 ''Time Magazine'' report, he ordered police to violently massacre more than 300 unarmed protestors.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,450997-1,00.html</ref> Under his rule, Iran became the first Middle Eastern country to simply steal and nationalize Western oil fields--even though the Iranians did not know how to use them on their own.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=2635</ref> The result was the total collapse of the Iranian economy. Iranian oil supplies were taken off the world market.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,450997-1,00.html</ref><ref>http://jebhemelli.net/mossadegh/mossaddegh_1951m_of_y%20Page%202.htm</ref> This doomed all future economic development in Iran, a "basket-case" nation plagued with rampant disease, illiteracy, and religious fanaticism.
President Truman had met with Mossadegh and pledged US support against the English, expressing admiration for his efforts at economic justice. His administration concluded that England sought "''a rule or ruin''" policy on Iran. The Eisenhower administration saw things rather differently.

When Mossadegh delayed settling with Anglo-Iranian Oil on the takeover of the company, the British, under [[Winston Churchill]], approached the CIA with a plan to remove the Premier. The British could not do it alone. Allen Dulles, the CIA director, and his brother John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, agreed. The Dulles brothers assigned the task of overseeing the clandestine venture to intelligence operative Kermit Roosevelt.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,450997-1,00.html#ixzz16K23QRPB</ref> According to ''Time'':
<blockquote>
The CIA's fingerprints were everywhere. Operatives paid off Iranian newspaper editors to print pro-Shah and anti-Mossadegh stories. They produced their own stories and editorial cartoons and published fabricated interviews. They secured the cooperation of the Iranian military. They spread antigovernment rumors. They prepared phony documents to show secret agreements between Mossadegh and the local Communist Party. They masqueraded as communists, threatened conservative Muslim clerics and even staged a sham fire-bombing of the home of a religious leader. They incited rioters to set fire to a pro-Mossadegh newspaper. They stage-managed the appearance of Mossadegh's successor, General Zahedi, whose personal bank account they fattened.
</blockquote>

Mossadegh was overthrown, and the ousted [[Mohammed Reza Pahlavi| Shah]] returned to Iran in triumph. Cheering crowds trumpeted his return, as he promptly launched new electoral reforms introducing voting to all members of society--including women. Iran was praised in the West as a beacon of stability, and maintained close relations with the United States until 1979.

The administration of [[Bill Clinton]] formally apologized to Iran for the CIA-supported coup in a speech made in 2000.<ref>http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/speeches/albright-17-03-00.htm</ref> President [[Barack Obama]] also made a seperate apology.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227855/zeal-zelaya/conrad-black</ref>

Conrad Black, arguing that the CIA role was minimal as compared to the efforts of the Iranian army and the internal fighting in Iran, mocked Obama over "''his apology for President Eisenhower’s approval of the overthrow of the deranged Iranian demagogue Mohammed Mossadegh.''"<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227855/zeal-zelaya/conrad-black</ref>

====Guatemala 1954====
The CIA helped overthrow the government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in [[Guatemala]] in 1954. This was one of its most controversial operations, its model for subsequent covert action against countries like [[Cuba]], and its first attempt at regime change in Latin America.

Arbenz was democratically elected. He considered himself a socialist and joined the Communist Party in 1957. His land reform, designed by the Communist Party, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which he then purged. It sought to remove land held by multinational corporations, and give it to landless working class peasants, who toiled under neo-colonial, feudalistic conditions. His regime openly praised Stalin, relied on the communists for key decisions, and received arms from the Soviet
bloc.<ref>Piero Gleijeses, Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954
(Princeton University Press, 1991), pp84, 147, 145, 155, 181-2, a virtual hagiography of Arbenz.</ref> He killed hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de
1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio
(Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero (findings of Guatemala's independant truth commission after the restoration of civilian rule and democracy)</ref> The CIA intervened because it feared that a communist dictatorship would become a Soviet beachhead in the Western Hemisphere, and also because they feared that similar uprisings of the masses against foreign powers and corporations might occur in the neighboring countries of El Salvador and Honduras<ref>Nicholas Cullather, Secret History: The CIA’s Classified Account of its Operation in Guatemala,
1952-1954 (Stanford University Press, 1999) pp24-7, based on the CIA archives</ref>

The Truman administration began developing contingency plans to remove Arbenz in 1952, in the event that he became a threat to American interests in the region. In the face of widespread popular discontent in Guatemala and mass protests organized by the Catholic Church, the CIA used black propaganda to spread panic among the population. In the midst of a low-level internal civil war, the Eisenhower administration mobilized disaffected Guatemalan exiles to invade the country from neighboring [[Honduras]]. Arbenz, a fighter until the end, donned his colonel's uniform and prepared himself for war with the United States. Ultimately, however, there was very little fighting at all; the military failed to support Arbenz due to its own concerns over his perceived radicalism. The US-armed rebellion quickly took over the country, to the surprise of the CIA, which had expected much fiercer resistance. With the army promptly joining the revolt, Arbenz fled the country in a panic. He was allowed exile by the new regime.

Vice-President [[Richard Nixon]] praised the new elections held by the military regime, declaring that Guatemala represented "the first time in history that a Communist government has ever been overthrown and replaced by a free one." However, Guatemala would be plagued with instability for decades. A series of military coups rocked the country, as Soviet and Cuban support for Communist violence caused bloody civil strife. After a 1982 coup, Guatemala was placed under a US arms embargo imposed on human rights grounds. A vicious genocide reminiscent of the mass killing of the Hmong in [[Laos]] was then carried out against the Mayan Indians, in which scores of thousands were massacred.

In Guatemala in 1954, the CIA operation was marked by chronic lapses in security, the failure to plan beyond the operation's first stages, the Agency's poor understanding of the intentions of the Guatemalan Army, the local communist party (the Guatemalan Labor Party), and the government, the hopeless weakness of invasion leader Carlos Castillo Armas's troops, and the failure to make provisions for the possibility of defeat. Just as the entire operation seemed hopeless, and before there were any significant violent attacks against it, the leftist Guatemalan government suddenly, inexplicably collapsed and a pro-American government took over.<ref> Nick Cullather, ''Secret History: The CIA's Classified Account of Its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954.'' (1999)</ref>

====Congo Crisis====
Humberto Fontova has written with his characteristic wit and élan:
<blockquote>
Later, many of these Cuban-American BOP vets itched to get back into the fight (but with ammo and air cover this time). The CIA obliged and sent them with ex-marine Rip Robertson to the Congo in ‘65. There they linked up with the legendary mercenary "Mad Mike" Hoare and his "Wild Geese."

Together Mad Mike, Rip and the Cubans made short work of the alternately Chinese-and Soviet-backed "Simbas" of Laurent Kabila, who were murdering, raping and munching (many were cannibals) their way through the defenseless Europeans still left in the recently abandoned Belgian colony.

Forget Frank Church and the Clintonites. Ask the hundreds of Europeans rescued from butchery (literally!) by these men. You'll hear a different song, believe me. You can read about their exploits in Hoare's book, "Congo Mercenary," and in Enrique Ros' "Cubanos Combatientes" (sadly, available only in Spanish).

Kabila made Idi Amin look like Gandhi. Castro, itching to be rid of this nuisance, sent Che (code-named "Tatu") and a force of his rebel army "veterans" to help these cannibals. The Congolese reds, unfamiliar with Che's true record, accepted Tatu gratefully.

The masterful "Tatu's" first order of business was plotting an attack on a garrison guarding a hydroelectric plant in a place called Front Bendela on the Kimbi River in Eastern Congo. His masterstroke was to be an elaborate ambush of the garrison.

The wily Tatu was stealthily leading his force into position when they heard shots. Whoops! ... Hey?! WHAT THE?! Ambushers became ambushed – and by the same garrison he thought was guarding the plant. Che lost half his men and barely escaped with his life.

....Thing was, any teen gang member in East L.A. or south Bronx has 10 times the battle experience and savvy of any of these strutting Fidelista "Comandantes." Imagine the Germans atop Monte Cassino outnumbering and outgunning the Allies 10 to 1 in early ‘44. Hell, they'd STILL be there. It was a defender's dream.

Well, the brilliant Tatu and his comandantes had that very set-up in a place called Fizi-Baraka in Eastern Congo for their second clash with the mad dogs of imperialism. Mad Mike and his CIA allies sized the place up and attacked. Within one day the mighty Che's entire force was scrambling away in panic, throwing away their arms, running and screaming like old ladies with rats running up their legs.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4455-the-real-che-guevara.html</ref>
</blockquote>

====Brazil 1964====
On March 30, the American military attaché in Brazil, Colonel Vernon A. Walters, telegraphed the [[United States Department of State|State Department]]. In that telegraph, he confirmed that Brazilian army generals, independently of the US, had committed themselves to acting against President João Goulart within a week of the meeting, but no date was set.<ref>[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxxi/36291.htm 192. Telegram From the Army Attaché in Brazil (Walters) to the Department of the Army] United States State Department. March 30, 1964. Retrieved on August 20, 2007.</ref>

Declassified transcripts of communications between Lincoln Gordon and the US government show that, predicting an all-out civil war, President Johnson authorized logistical materials to be in place to support the coup-side of the rebellion as part of U.S. ''Operation Brother Sam''.<ref>[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxxi/36291.htm 198. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Brazil]. Washington, March 31, 1964, 2:29 p.m. Retrieved on August 20, 2007.</ref>

In the telegraphs, Gordon also acknowledges US involvement in "covert support for pro-democracy street rallies…and encouragement [of] democratic and anti-communist sentiment in Congress, armed forces, friendly labor and student groups, church, and business" and that he "may be requesting modest supplementary funds for other covert action programs in the near future."<ref>[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxxi/36291.htm 187. Telegram From the Ambassador to Brazil (Gordon) to the Department of State] Rio de Janeiro, March 28, 1964. Retrieved on August 20, 2007</ref>

====Chile 1970-3====
The CIA opposed the Communist regime of [[Salvador Allende]] in Chile, which was originally elected with a minority of the vote and subsequently achieved dictatorial powers.

The CIA, as recounted in the Church Committee report, was involved in various plots designed to remove Allende and then let the Chileans vote in a new election where he would not be a candidate: It tried to buy off the Chilean Congress to prevent his appointment, attempted to have him exiled, worked to sway public opinion against him to prevent his election, tried to foil his political aspirations during the [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] administration, and financed protests designed to bring the country to a stand-still and make him resign.<ref>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/html/ChurchIR_0120a.htm</ref> Convinced that a conventional military uprising was still not possible in Chile, the CIA, acting with the approval of the 40 Committee—the body charged with overseeing covert actions abroad—devised what in effect was a constitutional coup. The most expeditious way to prevent Allende from assuming office was somehow to convince the Chilean congress to confirm Alessandri as the winner of the election. Once elected by the congress, Alessandri—a party to the plot through intermediaries—was prepared to resign his presidency within a matter of days so that new elections could be held.<ref>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/html/ChurchIR_0120a.htm</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=15648</ref> The CIA also learned of a number of plots to establish a military dictatorship. Although it pointedly refused to materially assist any of them, and actually intervened to prevent one of the plots for fear it would fail and strengthen Allende; it also encouraged several of the plots and did nothing to prevent them. It assured the plotters that such an event would be welcomed in Washington and that the US would not cut off aid over potential human rights violations.<ref>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/html/ChurchIR_0120a.htm</ref> In addition, the CIA provided funding for the mass anti-government strikes in 1972 and 1973. Though the CIA maintained contact with a notorious right-wing extremist named Roberto Viaux, Nixon and Kissinger, recognizing that "nothing could be worse than an abortive coup," repeatedly relayed messages to him urging restraint and went to great lengths to deter him from staging a coup.<ref>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/html/ChurchIR_0120a.htm</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=15648</ref>

Although the US considered economic sanctions against the Allende regime, it never actually implemented them. Although Latin Americans viewed the US as omnipotent, future Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet mocked it as a paper tiger and felt free to launch terrorist attacks in Washington, D.C., during his reign. The US ended up giving more aid to Allende's Chile than any of the prior administrations. The US worked to diffuse potential coups that it had once warmly encouraged, fearing that it would be blamed if they failed. Though hesitant and uneasy, the CIA vowed to "continue to put pressure on every Allende weak spot" even after his appointment. The CIA had warned that the odds of either a military or a constitutional coup succeeding were one in twenty; after they both failed to occur in 1970, US policy shifted towards maintaining a democratic opposition to the Allende regime.

US intelligence reports implicated Allende in the assassination of several opponents,<ref>http://nixontapeaudio.org/chile/517-004.pdf Includes discussion of intelligence reports of Allende-backed hit jobs; note that Cuban intelligence reached the same conclusion--hence the infamous "packages" scandal.</ref> while KGB files smuggled out of Russia by Vasily Mitrokhin indicate that Allende received funds from the Soviet Union.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219461/pinochet-history/nro-symposium</ref> Allende was formally condemned by Chile's parliament for systematically destroying democracy in Chile.<ref>“Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy,” Resolution of the Chamber of Deputies, Chile, August 22, 1973.</ref> The Chilean Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973, accused Allende of support of armed groups, torture, illegal arrests, muzzling the press, confiscating private property, and not allowing people to leave the country. In the infamous "Cuban Packages Scandal" that precipitated the coup, large quantities of weapons were sent from Castro's Cuba to arm pro-Allende terrorists in Chile.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219461/pinochet-history/nro-symposium</ref> Kissinger privately told Nixon that Allende might declare martial law.<ref>http://nixontapeaudio.org/chile/517-004.pdf</ref> By 1973, as a result of covert US aid to Chilean dissidents and financing of pro-democracy protestors, US intelligence indicated Allende would likely lose the next Chilean election if it was held.<ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=15648</ref> According to ''The Wall Street Journal,'' faced with illegal seizures of farms and factories, of defiance of judicial orders, unchecked street violence and death threats against the judges themselves, the Supreme Court warned on May 26, 1973, in a unanimous and unprecedented message, that Chile faced "a peremptory or imminent breakdown of legality."<ref>http://www.lyd.com/noticias/violencia/what_really.html</ref> Inflation reached 1,000%. Volodia Teitelboim, the chief ideologue of the Communist Party in Chile, declared that if civil war came, "it probably would signify immense loss of human lives, between half a million and one million."<ref>http://www.lyd.com/noticias/violencia/what_really.html</ref>

On September 11, 1973, Allende committed suicide during a military coup launched by Army Commander-in-Chief [[Augusto Pinochet]], who became President. Allende's policies had turned the country into a dictatorship that would kill thousands.

On September 16, 1973, the following exchange about the coup took place between Kissinger and President Nixon:

: '''Nixon''': Nothing new of any importance or is there?
: '''Kissinger''': Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
: '''Nixon''': Isn't that something. Isn't that something.
: '''Kissinger''': I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
: '''Nixon''': Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.
: '''Kissinger''': We didn't do it. I mean we helped them....created the conditions as great as possible.
: '''Nixon''': That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/chile.htm The Kissinger Telcons: Kissinger Telcons on Chile], National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 123, edited by Peter Kornbluh, posted May 26, 2004. This particular dialogue can be found at [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/Box%2022,%20File%203,%20Telcon,%209-16-73%2011,50%20Mr.%20Kissinger-The%20Pres%202.pdf TELCON: September 16, 1973, 11:50 a.m. Kissinger Talking to Nixon]. Retrieved November 26, 2006.</ref>

Kissinger is clearly telling the President that any direct US role in such a coup would be abhorrent but that the coup itself was preferable to a Communist take-over (with both agreeing that the US did not assist the plot).

Chilean author Joaquín Fermandois, noting the meetings with Chilean generals in which the US encouraged a potential coup, concluded that the US "wanted Allende out" and that the notion of free elections being held subsequently was not a prerequisite, but simply one possible outcome (i.e., if the Allessandri plot worked). He wrote: "What they wanted was to prevent Allende from coming to power, if necessary by the intervention of the military."<ref>www.cepchile.cl/dms/archivo_3236_1698/r92_fermandois_ing.pdf Translated from Spanish; ''Commentary'' accepts at face value the idea that an "interim junta" would have voluntarily stepped down and held new elections after a few days if the military had intervened; but Fermandois points out that "few believe this to be so" and expresses his own doubts about the thesis; Fermandois writes that the Americans did ''not'' "see all this as a way towards a new election"--but obviously, the attempts to influence the 1970 election and the aid to Chilean dissidents in its aftermath could not have served another purpose, and the attempt to buy off the Congress so that it would vote differently could not have imposed dictatorship (indeed, it would have saved Chilean democracy along with thousands of Chilean lives). However, the CIA's encouragement of a military coup, he is right to say, could not have served the purpose of holding elections, except in that it would remove Allende. But Fermandois acknowledges that despite the repeated encouragement, the US steadfastly refused any material support of its own for such a scheme. His point is far from profound: When the CIA sends messages like "it is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup," it is not referring merely to a constitutional coup. However, it does make a moral difference if the US is only encouraging such a coup as a last resort, and against a Communist dictator, and without offering the plotters material aid.</ref> However, considering the involvement of Cuba, Russia, Brazil and other powers at the same time, he discusses whether or not this support was "moral, immoral, or amoral," concluding that the CIA was unable to make a serious difference and that Chile illustrates the tragic irony of "the myth of American omnipotence." The conflict was an internal civil war, and one should not be surprised to see foreign powers involve themselves in it; the notion that "the CIA was behind everything," he says, is simply a myth. (In fact, the Soviet Union and the United States were the two powers that both refused, unlike Brazil and Cuba, to materially assist plans to establish a dictatorial regime in Chile.) While Fermandois condemns the violence perpetrated by the Allende regime, including the illegal armed regiment from Cuba, he argues that it is as mythical to assert that it justified Pinochet's excesses as it is to call Allende a typical democratic leftist.<ref>Ibid.</ref> One supposes that the ''realist'' response to all this would be that if they're planning a coup either way; we might as well intervene against our possible foes and encourage our potential friends, as long as we don't materially assist the gambit (especially if one has already tried and failed to remove the de facto dictator through democratic means).

Kissinger and Ford began viewing Pinochet's regime as a serious Cold War liability as early as 1975 and the US engaged in repeated diplomatic confrontations with it from 1977 on.<ref>www.cepchile.cl/dms/archivo_3236_1698/r92_fermandois_ing.pdf Translated from Spanish</ref> The CIA warned that "internationally, the Latin generals look like our guys;" therefore, the US had a vested interest in moderating the way they behaved.

Using its leverage over Pinochet to curtail Chilean human rights abuses, the US simultaneously pressured Chile to introduce a series of free market economic reforms, a process that escalated sharply in the eighties. This led to a period of rapid economic expansion and development without precedent in Latin America, in which growth averaged 7% annually, that came to be known as the "''miracle of Chile''" (it also included the region's greatest reductions in infant mortality<ref>Nick Eberstadt, The Poverty of Communism (Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp188,
196-206, 240-6, in which he discusses living standards in Communist Cuba versus Pinochet's Chile.</ref>). In turn, this allowed Chile to make a long-term transition to sustainable democratic rule that would likely have been otherwise inconceivable.<ref>http://www.lyd.com/noticias/violencia/what_really.html</ref>

Another aspect of the American role in Chile was an alleged attempt on the life of Chilean general Rene Schneider in 1970, due to his support for the appointment of Allende. The Church hearings found that the CIA did in fact give weapons to a group of men who it knew had attacked him twice before, ostensibly as a test of loyalty so that the CIA would remain privy to their information, but that the weapons provided and the group thereby armed were not the ones who actually killed him. The weapons were returned unused to the CIA and then discarded in the Pacific Ocean.<ref>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/html/ChurchIR_0120a.htm</ref> On June 11, 1971, Kissinger and Nixon said the following in a private conversation:

: '''Kissinger''': —when they did try to assassinate somebody, it took three attempts—
: '''Nixon''': Yeah.
: '''Kissinger''': —and he lived for three weeks afterwards.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/nixon_tape_reveals_oval_office.html</ref>

There are two possible interpretations of these remarks: a) Kissinger was telling the President that a military coup could not succeed in Chile because there were no officers both willing and ''able'' to carry one out; or b) the two men were mocking the CIA's squeamishness about killing Schneider.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/nixon_tape_reveals_oval_office.html | work=The Washington Post | title=Nixon and Kissinger joked over Chile assassination}}</ref>

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in its investigation of the matter, concluded that since the machine guns supplied to Valenzuela had not actually been employed in the killing, and since General Viaux had been officially discouraged by the CIA a few days before the murder, there was therefore "no evidence of a plan to kill Schneider or that United States officials specifically anticipated that Schneider would be shot during the abduction." This view has been disputed by writer [[Christopher Hitchens]].<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/feb/24/features.weekend</ref>

====Iraq 1959 and 1973-5====
The US-backed Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, an event which shocked President Eisenhower. Worse, the new regime was led by a de facto [[Communist]] dictator, General Abdel Karrim Qassem. Qassem was far bloodier than his predecessor. Further, he withdrew from the Baghdad Pact, an agreement between Iraq, [[Iran]], [[Pakistan]] and other countries in the Middle East intended to deter the Soviets from intruding in the affairs of the region. Openly admiring of the USSR, Qassem repeatedly threatened his neighbors, including Iran, where a CIA-sponsored counter-coup had saved the Shah's regime from collapse in 1953. He publicly declared that Khuzestan province in northern Iran was really a part of Iraq, and allegedly armed secessionist revolts from the Arabs who lived there. He amassed troops to invade Kuwait, a move that nearly led to war between Iraq and [[England]] (which was committed by treaty to defend Kuwait).

Qassem was overthrown in a 1963 coup orchestrated significantly by the Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath Party gained limited power in the new government, though it lacked control of the Presidency. It struggled with the military men who had assisted the coup for absolute power. The Ba'ath was purged a few months later, and would have to work to regain political influence. A series of coups and power struggles plagued Iraq until 1968, when the Ba'ath Party gained long-term power.

In July 1968, a bloodless coup led by General Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, Saddam Hussein and Salah Omar Al-Ali besieged the Iraqi presidential palace and forced Iraqi President Abdul Rahman Arif to resign. The new regime immediately freed all of the Communist and [[leftist]] political prisoners of the regime, and heightened tensions with Iran. The [[Lyndon Johnson]] administration was vociferously opposed to the new regime, viewing it as a "radical" government brought to power in a "counter-coup" that strengthened the Soviet Union.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/critchfield.html</ref> As a result, diplomatic relations with Iraq, cut off due to the 1967 Six Day War with Israel, remained completely severed for the next 16 years. The Iraqi government promptly seized all foreign oil fields for the purposes of "combating imperialism." The US made all arms sales to Iraq under this new regime formally illegal in a law passed by the US [[Congress]].

In 1973, Kissinger and Nixon approved a covert [[CIA]] campaign of subversion and sabotage designed to bring down the Socialist government of [[Iraq]]. Done in collaboration with the [[Shah]] of neighboring [[Iran]], it involved Soviet arms captured from Egypt and [[Syria]] in the 1973 war being dispatched to Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq. The Shah cynically used the Kurds to pressure the Ba'athist government to back down on a number of serious territorial disputes between the two nations. The US brokered a peace treaty between Iraq and Iran in 1975, and aid to the Kurds was subsequently cut off. The Kurds were then viciously slaughtered. "''Covert action should not be confused with missionary work,''" Kissinger famously declared.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2156400/</ref>

The CIA under Eisenhower had dealt with the rather similiar problem of Qassem's leftist regime in a rather similar manner: CIA-sponsored regime change. While Qassem was actually killed by a firing squad of the Ba'ath party that overthrew him, there had been a separate CIA plan to incapacitate him. In their request, they said the target's death would not be unacceptable to them, but was not the principal objective: "We do not consciously seek subject's permanent removal from the scene; we also do not object should this complication develop."

====Angola 1975====
In the Angolan Civil War, the Communist MPLA (''People's Movement for the Liberation of [[Angola]]'') government was pitted against various right-wing insurgencies as well as an invasion from [[South Africa]]. The CIA covertly attempted to overthrow the MPLA dictatorship in 1975,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c35COXObeo8&feature=fvw Former CIA head in Angola discusses the operation on CNN</ref> but Cuba militarily intervened to save the regime from certain collapse. The Communist government subsequently killed up to one million people through massacre and forced starvation.<ref>Médecins Sans Frontières, “Angola: An Alarming Nutritional Situation,” August 1999</ref> The U.S., advised by Kissinger, supported the rebels FNLA (''National Front for the Liberation of Angola''), led by Holden Roberto, and UNITA (''National Union for the Total Independence of Angola''), led by [[Jonas Savimbi]], as well as the ''Mozambican National Resistance'' (RENAMO), and the invasion of Angola by South African troops. The FNLA was defeated and UNITA was forced to take its fight into the bush. Only under Reagan's presidency would U.S. support for UNITA return. (See [[Reagan Doctrine]])

Angola would be plagued for decades with constant civil war. In 1992, blatantly rigged elections were held with next to no international supervision, in which MPLA claimed victory. After 500,000 UNITA voters were disenfranchised, UNITA sent a peace delegation to the capital; all of its members, along with 20,000 civilian supporters, were brutally massacred.<ref>National Society for Human Rights, Ending the Angolan Conflict, Windhoek, Namibia, July 3, 2000</ref> Nevertheless, Savimbi remained supportive of the elections, until the MPLA systematically exterminated many tens of thousands of UNITA supporters throughout the country. Human rights observers have accused the MPLA of "genocidal atrocities," "systematic extermination," "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity."<ref>Namibia's National Human Rights Organisation, Press Releases, September 12, 2000, May 16, 2001</ref>

The Democrats in Congress cut off aid to UNITA under President Ford, just as they abandoned South Vietnam and Cambodia to murderous Communist bloodbath. "''A great nation cannot escape its responsibilities,''" Ford admonished them. Emboldened, Cuba would soon militarily intervene on behalf of the Communist dictatorship in [[Ethiopia]], which killed 1.25 million people through massacre and forced starvation.<ref>Washington Post, March 18, 1978; New York Times, December 14, 1994.</ref>

===Scandals===
Attacks on the CIA came to a head in the early 1970s, around the time of the [[Watergate scandal|Watergate]] political burglary affair. A dominant feature of political life during that period was the attempts of Congress to assert oversight of U.S. Presidency, take control of war-making, and more closely supervise the executive agencies.<ref> Kathryn S. Olmsted, ''Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI.'' (1996). 255 pp. </ref> Revelations about past CIA activities, such as assassinations and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders, illegal domestic spying on U.S. citizens, provided the opportunities to execute Congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence operations. Hastening the Central Intelligence Agency's fall from grace were the burglary of the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic Party by ex-CIA agents, and President [[Richard Nixon]]'s subsequent use of the CIA to impede the FBI's investigation of the burglary.<ref> In the famous "smoking gun" recording that led to President Nixon's resignation, Nixon ordered his chief of staff, [[H.R. Haldeman]], to tell the CIA that further investigation of Watergate would "open the whole can of worms" about the [[Bay of Pigs Invasion|Bay of Pigs]] of Cuba, and, therefore, that the CIA should tell the FBI to cease investigating the Watergate burglary, due to reasons of "national security".</ref>

The CIA sent hundreds of agents to Vietnam and Laos to build up anticommunist guerrilla groups. The CIA assisted (but did not actually operate) the "Phoenix" program by which South Vietnamese police forces identified and arrested Viet Cong leaders (torturing many and killing several thousand of them). In the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, it planned several assassinations, with [[Fidel Castro]] a target of "Operation Mongoose." Castro was never harmed. Indeed, as a hostile Senate committee concluded, the agency did not in fact assassinate anyone. Congress has never passed a law forbidding assassinations, but every president since Ford has issued executive orders that prohibit direct (or indirect) attempts at assassination.

===Revival under Reagan===
In 1981 President Reagan appointed his campaign manager [[Bill Casey]] to run the CIA; Casey, a dynamic veteran of O.S.S. espionage, revived the CIA into a powerful instrument of rollback policy. With nuclear deterrence tying the Kremlin's hands, Casey used the CIA to attack the weak links in the Soviet empire. In Afghanistan, it funded and trained Mujahidin guerrillas who deliberately created "another Vietnam" to weaken the Soviet invaders, and indeed finally did defeat the Soviet invasion. Anti-Soviet operations in Afghanistan and Cambodia received strong support from Congress, but operations in Angola and especially Nicaragua became the focus of intense political controversy. When Congress one year prohibited the CIA from operating in Nicaragua, Reagan's White House exploited a loophole by sending its own staffer, [[Oliver North]], to funnel arms and money to the Contra guerrillas.

====Afghanistan 1978-89====
From 1950 to 1979, U.S. foreign assistance provided Afghanistan with more than $500 million in loans, grants, and surplus agricultural commodities to develop transportation facilities, increase agricultural production, expand the educational system, stimulate industry, and improve government administration. The [[Peace Corps]] was active in Afghanistan between 1962 and 1979.

After the April 1978 Saur Revolution, relations between the two nations deteriorated. In February 1979, U.S. Ambassador Adolph "Spike" Dubs was murdered in Kabul after Afghan security forces burst in on his kidnappers. The U.S. then reduced bilateral assistance and terminated a small military training program. All remaining assistance agreements were ended after the [[Soviet-Afghan War| Soviet invasion of Afghanistan]].

President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]] reacted with "open-mouthed shock" to the Soviet invasion, and began promptly arming the Afghan insurgents.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2166661</ref> Vice-President Walter Mondale famously declared: "I cannot understand -- it just baffles me -- why the Soviets these last few years have behaved as they have. Maybe we have made some mistakes with them. Why did they have to build up all these arms? Why did they have to go into Afghanistan? Why can't they relax just a little bit about Eastern Europe? Why do they try every door to see if it is locked?"<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0310/031029.html</ref> The Soviets brutally murdered the Afghan President and his son, replacing him with a puppet regime, immediately after the invasion for fear that the US had secretly been collaborating with him.

One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants.<ref>Time Magazine, 13 May 2003, "The Oily Americans," http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,450997-2,00.html</ref> About $3 billion dollars were sent to equip them through the [[Pakistan]]i secret service, the ISI, in a program called ''Operation Cyclone''.

The Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 significantly damaged the already tenuous relationship between Secretary of State [[Cyrus Vance]] and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Vance felt that Brzezinski's linkage of SALT II ratification to other Soviet activities, together with the growing domestic criticisms in the United States of the accord, convinced Brezhnev to decide on military intervention in Afghanistan. Brzezinski, however, later recounted that he repeatedly advanced proposals on how to maintain Afghanistan's "independence" and deter a Soviet invasion but was frustrated by the Department of State's opposition.

According to Brzezinski, a National Security Council working group on Afghanistan wrote several reports on the deteriorating situation in 1979, but President Carter ignored them until the Soviet intervention destroyed his illusions. Brzezinski has stated that the US provided communications equipment and limited financial aid to the mujahideen prior to the "formal" invasion, but only in response to the Soviet deployment of forces to Afghanistan and the 1978 coup, and with the intention of preventing further Soviet encroachment in the region.<ref>{{cite web|author=“” |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGjAsQJh7OM&feature=channel |title=Brzezinski and the Afghan War Pt2 |publisher=YouTube |date= |accessdate=2010-07-10}}</ref> Two declassified documents signed by Carter shortly before the invasion do authorize the provision "unilaterally or through third countries as appropriate support to the Afghan insurgents either in the form of cash or non-military supplies" and the "worldwide" distribution of "non-attributable propaganda" to "expose" the leftist Afghan government as "despotic and subservient to the Soviet Union" and to "publicize the efforts of the Afghan insurgents to regain their country's sovereignty," but the records also show that the provision of arms to the rebels did not begin until 1980.<ref>http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1581.jpg</ref><ref>http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1579.jpg</ref> Vance's close aide Marshall Shulman "insists that the State Department worked hard to dissuade the Soviets from invading."<ref>''The Nation'', November 12, 2001</ref> The American aid provided in 1979 was purely humanitarian in nature.

The Soviet invasion and occupation killed up to 2 million Afghans.<ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Afghanistan</ref> Brzezinski defended the arming of the rebels in response, saying that it "was quite important in hastening the end of the conflict," thereby saving the lives of thousands of Afghans, but "not in deciding the conflict, because actually the fact is that even though we helped the mujaheddin, they would have continued fighting without our help, because they were also getting a lot of money from the Persian Gulf and the Arab states, and they weren't going to quit. They didn't decide to fight because we urged them to. They're fighters, and they prefer to be independent. They just happen to have a curious complex: they don't like foreigners with guns in their country. And they were going to fight the Soviets. Giving them weapons was a very important forward step in defeating the Soviets, and that's all to the good as far as I'm concerned." When he was asked if he thought it was the right decision in retrospect (given the Taliban's subsequent rise to power), he said: "Which decision? For the Soviets to go in? The decision was the Soviets', and they went in. The Afghans would have resisted anyway, and they were resisting. I just told you: in my view, the Afghans would have prevailed in the end anyway, 'cause they had access to money, they had access to weapons, and they had the will to fight."<ref>http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1110&Itemid=143</ref>

With US and other funding, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents. On July 20, 1987, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country was announced pursuant to the negotiations that led to the Geneva Accords of 1988,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/ungomap/background.html |title=United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan - Background |publisher=United Nations |date= |accessdate=2008-11-21}}</ref> with the last Soviets leaving on February 15, 1989.

The operation was a quintessential case of American ingenuity, in which the US offered overwhelming aid to a people resisting foreign subjugation, often through inventive and daring means. The invasion prompted an outpouring of sympathy in the United States, with films such as ''Rambo III,'' ''The Living Daylights,'' and ''The Beast'' romanticizing the rebels. President [[Reagan]] stated: "''To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom.''"

One of the Big Lies about this period is that the US supported the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, or al Qaeda. This silly myth has been extensivively debunked. Paul Bogdanor writes in ''The Top 200 [[Chomsky]] Lies'':
<blockquote>
This is "not true" since CIA money "went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen
groups, not the Arab volunteers" (Jason Burke). Bin Laden was "outside of CIA eyesight" and
there is "no record of any direct contact" (Steve Coll). There is "no evidence" of funding,
"nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle"
(Peter Bergen). There is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA
funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen"
(Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin).<ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf</ref>
</blockquote>

====Cambodia 1979-95====
The Reagan Administration sought to apply the [[Reagan Doctrine]] of aiding anti-Soviet resistance movements abroad to Cambodia, which was under Vietnamese occupation following the [[Cambodian genocide]] carried out by the Communist [[Khmer Rouge]]. The Vietnamese had installed a Communist dictatorship led by a Khmer Rouge dissident. According to R.J. Rummel; the Vietnamese invasion, occupation, puppet regime, ongoing guerilla warfare, and ensuing famine killed over one million Cambodians in addition to the roughly 2.2 million who had been killed by the Khmer Rouge.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP4.HTM</ref> Ironically; the largest resistance movement fighting Cambodia's communist government was largely made up of members of the former Khmer Rouge regime, whose human rights record was among the worst of the 20th century. Therefore; Reagan authorized the provision of aid to a smaller Cambodian resistance movement, a coalition called the Khmer People's National Liberation Front, known as the KPNLF and then run by Son Sann; in an effort to force an end to the Vietnamese occupation. Eventually, the Vietnamese withdrew, and Cambodia's Communist regime fell.<ref>[http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1988/february/Sa13957.htm "Cambodia at a Crossroads," by Michael Johns, ''The World and I'' magazine, February 1988.]</ref> Later, US troops, in concert with UN forces, invaded Cambodia and held free elections.<ref name="UN_SRES7451992">{{UN document |docid=S-RES-745(1992) |type=Resolution |body=Security Council |year=1992 |resolution_number=745 |accessdate=2008-04-09|date=28 February 1992}}</ref>

====El Salvador 1980-92====
In the Salvadoran Civil War between the military-led government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), a coalition or umbrella organization of five left-wing militias; the US supported the Salvadoran military government.<ref name="DiPiazza">{{Cite book|title=El Salvador in Pictures|author=Francesca Davis DiPiazza|page=32}}</ref><ref name="supply">(No author.)[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922440,00.html "Supply Line for a Junta,"] ''[[TIME Magazine]]'' March 16, 1981. Retrieved 2008-07-16.</ref> America also supported the centrist Christian Democrats, who were targets of death squads. The security forces were split between reformists and right-wing extremists, who used death squads to stop political and economic change. The Carter Administration repeatedly intervened to prevent right-wing coups. The Reagan Administration repeatedly threatened aid suspensions to halt right-wing atrocities. As a result, the death squads made plans to kill the American Ambassador.<ref>Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1982 (Christian Democrats killed); Washington Post, February 24, July 13, 1980 (Carter); New York Times, November 20, 26, December 12, 1983 (Reagan); New York Times, June 24, 1984, Washington Post, June 27, 1984 (Ambassador)</ref> After years of bloody fighting; the rebels were forced, in part due to US involvement, to concede defeat. The US then threatened to cut off aid to the Salvadoran regime unless it made democratic reforms, which might have let the rebels regroup. The regime accepted. As a result; a new Constitution was promulgated, the Armed Forces regulated, a ''civilian'' police force established, the FMLN metamorphosed from a guerrilla army to a political party that competed in free and fair elections, and an amnesty law was legislated in 1993.<ref>[http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37088 Amnesty Law Biggest Obstacle to Human Rights, Say Activists] by Raúl Gutiérrez, [[Inter Press Service News Agency]], May 19, 2007</ref> El Salvador is today a prosperous and democratic nation. In 2002, a BBC article about President [[George W. Bush]]'s visit to El Salvador reported that ''U.S. officials say that President George H.W. Bush's policies set the stage for peace, turning El Salvador into a democratic success story.''<ref name="brutal">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm "US role in Salvador's brutal war,"] BBC, March 24, 2002. Retrieved 2008-07-16.</ref>

====Nicaragua 1981-90====
After seizing power in Nicaragua, the Sandinista regime instituted dictatorial rule as early as December 1979, and formally announced a State of Emergency in 1982.
Under the new "Law for the Maintenance of Order and Public Security" the "Tribunales Populares Anti-Somozistas" allowed for the indefinite holding of suspected counter-revolutionaries without trial. The State of Emergency, however, most notably affected rights and guarantees contained in the "Statute on Rights and Guarantees of Nicaraguans. Many civil liberties were curtailed or canceled such as the freedom to organize demonstrations, the inviolability of the home, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and, the freedom to strike. <ref>West, W. Gordon. "The Sandista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
All independent news program broadcasts were suspended. In total, twenty-four programs were cancelled. In addition, Sandinista censor Nelba Cecilia Blandón issued a decree ordering all radio stations to hook up every six hours to government radio station, La Voz de La Defensa de La Patria.<ref>Chomorro Cardenal, Jaime (1988). La Prensa, The Republic of Paper. University Freedom House. p. 20.</ref>
The rights affected also included certain procedural guarantees in the case of detention including habeas corpus.<ref>West, W. Gordon, ibid.</ref> The State of Emergency was not lifted during the 1984 elections. There were many instances where rallies of opposition parties were physically broken up by Sandinsta youth or pro-Sandinista mobs. Opponents to the State of Emergency argued its intent was to crush resistance to the FSLN. James Wheelock justified the actions of the Directorate by saying "... We are annulling the license of the false prophets and the oligarchs to attack the revolution.” <ref>"Behind the State of Emergency". Envío. November 1985. http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/3413. Retrieved 2008-02-16.</ref>

Jamie Glazov describes human rights under this goverment as follows: "All Nicaraguans had to take part in the Marxist experiment. Thus, in perfect Khmer Rouge style, the Sandinistas inflicted a ruthless forcible relocation of tens of thousands of Indians from their land. Like Stalin, they used state-created famine as a weapon against these "enemies of the people." The Sandinista army committed myriad atrocities against the Indian population, killing and imprisoning approximately 15,000 innocent people. The crimes included not only mass murders of innocent natives themselves, but a calculated liquidation of their entire leadership – as the Soviet army had perpetrated against the Poles in Katyn in 1943. According to the Nicaraguan Commission of Jurists, the Sandinistas carried out over 8,000 political executions within three years of the revolution. The number of "anti-revolutionary" Nicaraguans who had "disappeared" in Sanadinista hands or had died "trying to escape" were numbered in the thousands. By 1983, the number of political prisoners in the Sandinistas' ruthless tyranny were estimated at 20,000. Torture was institutionalized. Numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Commission, have documented the atrocious record of Sandinista human rights abuses, which stood as the worst in Latin America. Political prisoners in Sandinista prisons, such as in Las Tejas, were consistently beaten, deprived of sleep and tortured with electric shocks. They were routinely denied food and water and kept in dark cubicles that had a surface of less than one square meter, known as chiquitas (little ones). These cubicles were too small to sit up in, were completely dark and had no sanitation and almost no ventilation.”<ref>http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=25257</ref>

The Sandinistas sent Soviet helicopter gunships and elite army units to attack the Indians; carried out mass arrests, jailings and torture; burned down 65 Indian communities; inflicted ethnic cleansing on 70,000 Indians; and tried to starve the Indians by cutting off food supplies. The Sandinistas boasted that they were “ready to eliminate the last Miskito Indian to take Sandinism to the Atlantic Coast.” <ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4.</ref>

For decades, Nicaragua had experienced some of the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Within a few years of Sandinista rule, wages had been fixed below poverty level and there was mass unemployment. There were shortages of nearly all basic goods, with inflation at 30,000%. Government studies found that three-quarters of schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition, while living standards were lower than Haiti. The World Bank found that Nicaragua was on the economic level of Somalia.

From 1981-90, the CIA aids the Contra revolution, plants harbor mines and sinks civilian ships to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. After the Boland Amendment was enacted, it became illegal under U.S. law to fund the Contras; National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, Deputy National Security Adviser Admiral John Poindexter, National Security Council staffer Col. Oliver North and others continued an illegal operation to fund the Contras, leading to the Iran-Contra affair. The U.S argued that:<ref>"Nicaragua's role in revolutionary internationalism". U.S. Department of State Bulletin. 1986.</ref>

<blockquote>
The United States initially provided substantial economic assistance to the Sandinista-dominated regime. We were largely instrumental in the OAS action delegitimizing the Somoza regime and laying the groundwork for installation for the new junta. Later, when the Sandinista role in the Salvadoran conflict became clear, we sought through a combination of private diplomatic contacts and suspension of assistance to convince Nicaragua to halt its subversion. Later still, economic measures and further diplomatic efforts were employed to try to effect changes in Sandinista behavior.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Nicaragua's neighbors have asked for assistance against Nicaraguan aggression, and the United States has responded. Those countries have repeatedly and publicly made clear that they consider themselves to be the victims of aggression from Nicaragua, and that they desire United States assistance in meeting both subversive attacks and the conventional threat posed by the relatively immense Nicaraguan Armed Forces.
</blockquote>

Due to US pressure, the Sandinistas held a blatantly rigged<ref>Martin Kriele, “Power and Human Rights in Nicaragua,” German Comments, April 1986, pp56-7, 63-7, a chapter excerpted from his Nicaragua: Das blutende Herz Amerikas (Piper, 1986). See also Robert S. Leiken, “The Nicaraguan Tangle,” New York Review of Books, December 5, 1985 and “The Nicaraguan Tangle: Another Exchange,” New York Review of Books, June 26, 1986; Alfred G. Cuzan, Letter, Commentary, December 1985 and “The Latin American Studies Association vs. the United States,” Academic Questions, Summer 1994.</ref> election in 1984. On October 5, 1985 the Sandinistas broadened the 1982 State of Emergency and suspended many more civil rights. A new regulation also forced any organization outside of the government to first submit any statement it wanted to make public to the censorship bureau for prior censorship.<ref>Chamorro Cardenal, Jaime (1988). La Prensa, A Republic of Paper, Freedom House, p. 23.</ref>

As the Contras continued to advance due to US aid, the Sandinistas struggled to maintain power. They were overthrown in 1990, when they ended the SOE and held an election that all the main opposition parties were allowed to compete in. According to P.J. O'Rourke, the Sandinistas were forced to agree to the elections by the US and the Contras, and lost them despite "the unfair advantages of using state resources for party ends, the Sandinista control of the transit system that prevented UNO supporters from attending rallies, the Sandinista domination of the army that forced soldiers to vote for Ortega and the Sandinista bureaucracy keeping $3.3 million of U.S. campaign aid from getting to UNO while Daniel Ortega spent millions donated by overseas people and millions and millions more from the Nicaraguan treasury.”<ref>“The Return of the Death of Communism: Nicaragua, February 1990," a chapter in Give War a Chance... by P. J. O'Rourke. Grove Press; reprint edition (November 2003, ISBN 0-8021-4031-9).</ref>

The Contras and the United States were accused of war crimes{{fact}} for fighting against the brutal dictatorship. Nicaraguan voters in the 1990 elections, however, thought otherwise, thanking the US for liberating them from Communist slavery: "The longer they were in power, the worse things became. It was all lies, what they promised us" (unemployed person); "I thought it was going to be just like 1984, when the vote was not secret and there was not all these observers around" (market vendor); "Don’t you believe those lies [about fraud], I voted my conscience and my principles, and so did everyone else I know" (young mother); "the Sandinistas have mocked and abused the people, and now we have given our vote to [the opposition] UNO" (ex-Sandinista officer).<ref>New York Times, March 5, 1990.</ref>

====Angola 1980s====
Dr. Peter Hammond, a Christian missionary who lived in Angola at the time, recalled:
<blockquote>
There were over 50,000 Cuban troops in the country. The Communists had attacked and destroyed many churches. MiG-23’s and MI-23 Hind helicopter gun ships were terrorising villagers in Angola. I documented numerous atrocities, including the strafing of villages, schools and churches. In 1986, I remember hearing Ronald Reagan’s speech – carried on the BBC Africa service – by short wave radio: “We are going to send stinger missiles to the UNITA Freedom Fighters in Angola!” Those who were listening to the SW radio with me looked at one another in stunned amazement. After a long silence as we wondered if our ears had actually heard what we thought we heard, one of us said: “That would be nice!” We scarcely dared believe that it would happen. But it did. Not long afterwards the stinger missiles began to arrive in UNITA controlled Free Angola. Soviet aircraft were shot down. The bombing and strafing of villagers, schools and churches came to an end. Without any doubt, Ronald Reagan’s policies saved many tens of thousands of lives in Angola."<ref>http://www.frontline.org.za/Letters%20to%20Editor/reagan_saved_lives_Angola.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

===9-11===
A major criticism is failure to forestall the [[9-11 Attack]] in 2001 because of three organizational deficiencies: the inability of multiple American intelligence agencies to work together, organizational incentives to take the wrong analytical actions, and resistance to new technologies and ideas.<ref>Amy B. Zegart, "CNN with Secrets": 9/11, the CIA, and the Organizational Roots of Failure." ''International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence'' 2007 20(1): 18-49. Issn: 0885-0607 </ref> The ''9/11 Commission Report'' identifies failures in the IC as a whole. One problem, for example, was the FBI failing to "connect the dots" by sharing information among its decentralized field offices. The report, however, criticizes both CIA analysis, and impeding their investigation. The CIA Inspector General in 2007 concluded that former DCI [[George Tenet]] failed to adequately prepare the agency to deal with the danger posed by [[Al Qaeda]] prior to the [[9-11 Attack]].

==Image and Reputation==
Cloak and dagger stories became part of the popular culture of the Cold War in both East and West, with innumerable novels and movies that showed how polarized and dangerous the world was. Soviet audiences thrilled at spy stories showing how their KGB agents protected the motherland by foiling dirty work by America's nefarious CIA, Britain's devious MI 6, and Israel's devilish Mossad. After 1963, Hollywood increasingly depicted the CIA as clowns (as in the comedy TV series "Get Smart") or villains (as in Oliver Stone's "JFK" (1992). In the genre of spy thrillers, the films 'Three Days of the Condor' (1975) and 'Spy Game' (2001) have been among the top box office attractions in American cinema. They both star Robert Redford and both portray the CIA as a wicked organization.<ref>Loch K. Johnson, "Spies In The American Movies: Hollywood's Take On Lese Majeste." ''Intelligence & National Security'' 2008 23(1): 5-24 </ref> The plotlines of Robert Ludlum's novel 'The Bourne Identity' (1980) and the 2002 film based on the novel mix truth and fiction. Some topics are distorted while others stick very closely to the truth. Congressional oversight, ethical dilemmas tied to assassination, and real-life antagonists play significant roles in both the novel and the film. In the book the antagonists are terrorists, particularly Carlos the Jackal, but in the movie version the 'bad people' are CIA officials. Although the antagonist changes between the novel and the film, they both are realistic aspects that draw the audience in.<ref>Shannon Mollie Eppa, "The Bourne Actuality: A Look at Reality's Role in the Bourne Identity Novel and Film" ''Intelligence & National Security'' 2008 23(1): 103-111 </ref>

Leftists around the globe routinely blamed the mysterious CIA for events that displeased them, putting the image of the USA as a champion of freedom and democracy in disrepute. The CIA lost influence after 1963. President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] disliked its pessimistic forecasts about Vietnam; President [[Richard M. Nixon]] and his national security advisor [[Henry Kissinger]] did not seek its advice. After Watergate (1974) it came under heavy attack for promoting right-wing governments, hampering the success of genuinely democratic protest movements, illegally monitoring dissent inside the USA, and frustrating democracy at home by its secrecy and lack of accountability. Was it needed in an age of detente? With 15,000 employees in 1973, it had a budget of about $740 million, of which $440 went to clandestine operations. Congressional committees began to monitor the agency closely. Employment and budgets were cut sharply (the totals are secret), and most covert operations were abandoned. Morale plummeted as the agency retreated to a mission of collecting and interpreting information about the Soviets.

==See Also==
[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] - [[Jesse Helms]]/CIA verification of survivor reports

==External Links==
* [https://www.cia.gov/ CIA website]
* [https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/history-of-the-cia/index.html CIA history], CIA official website
** [https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/6-12th-grade/operation-history/history-of-the-cia.html CIA history], CIA website aimed at students

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri and Andrew, Christopher, eds. ''Eternal Vigilance? 50 Years of the CIA.'' (1997). 246 pp.
* Powers, Thomas. ''Intelligence Wars: American Secret History from Hitler to Al-Qaeda'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Wars-American-Al-Qaeda-Collections/dp/1590170989/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210939963&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ranelagh, John. ''The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA. From Wild Bill Donovan to William Casey.'' (1986). 847 pp
* Rositzke, Harry. ''The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action'' (1988) 290 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/82295474?title=The%20CIA's%20Secret%20Operations%3a%20Espionage%2c%20Counterespionage%2c%20and%20Covert%20Action online edition]
* Trahair, Richard C. S. ''Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies, and Secret Operations'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Richard%20C.%20S.%20Trahair&dcontributors=Richard%20C.%20S.%20Trahair online edition]
* Weiner, Tim. ''Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254153112&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

===Special topics===
* Arbel, David, and Ran Edelist. ''Western Intelligence and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, 1980-1990: Ten Years That Did Not Shake the World'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/108511611?title=Western%20Intelligence%20and%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union%2c%201980-1990%3a%20%20Ten%20Years%20That%20Did%20Not%20Shake%20the%20World online edition]
* Barrett, David M. ''The CIA and Congress: The Untold Story from Truman to Kennedy.'' (2005). 542 pp.
* Coll, Steve. ''Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.'' (2004) 695 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/0143034669/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210940048&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Conboy, Kenneth and Morrison, James. ''The CIA's Secret War in Tibet.'' (2002). 301 pp. Covers the entire history of CIA support for armed Tibetan opposition to Chinese rule: from the seizure of Lhasa in August 1951 and subsequent flight of the Dalai Lama, to the rout of the last Tibetan guerrilla redoubt by the Royal Nepalese Army in 1974. It is a record of almost unmitigated failure. [http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210940048&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Darling, Arthur B. ''The Central Intelligence Agency: An Instrument of Government, to 1950'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/read/23121271?title=The%20Central%20Intelligence%20Agency%3a%20An%20Instrument%20of%20Government%2c%20to%201950 online edition]
* Firth, Noel E. and Noren, James H. ''Soviet Defense Spending: A History of CIA Estimates, 1950-1990.'' (1998). 291 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/8097712?title=Soviet%20Defense%20Spending%3a%20A%20History%20of%20CIA%20Estimates%2c%201950-1990 online edition]
* Grant, Zalin. ''Facing the Phoenix: The CIA and the Political Defeat of the United States in Vietnam.'' (1991). 395 pp.
* Haines, Gerald K. "An Emerging New Field of Study: U.S. Intelligence." ''Diplomatic History,'' June 2004, Vol. 28 Issue 3, pp 441-449, in [[EBSCO]]
* Higgins, Trumbull. ''The Perfect Failure: Kennedy, Eisenhower, and the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.'' (1987). 224 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/105410511?title=The%20Perfect%20Failure%3a%20%20Kennedy%2c%20Eisenhower%2c%20and%20the%20CIA%20at%20the%20Bay%20of%20Pigs online edition]
* Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. ''The CIA and American Democracy.'' (1989). 338 pp
* Johnston, Rob. ''Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study.'' (2005) https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-community/full_title_page.htm
* Kent, Sherman. ''Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy.'' (1947) (2000 reprint)). Seminal work on CIA intelligence analysis, especially the estimative process.
* Kessler, Ronald. ''The CIA at War: Inside the Secret Campaign Against Terror,'' (2003), 496 pp [http://www.amazon.com/CIA-War-Inside-Campaign-Against/dp/0312319320/ref=sid_dp_dp excerpt and text search]
* Moyar, Mark. ''Phoenix and the Birds of Prey: The CIA's Secret Campaign to Destroy the Viet Cong.'' (1997). 416 pp
* Olmsted, Kathryn S. ''Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI.'' (1996). 255 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001364299 online edition]
* Powers, Thomas. ''The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA.'' (1979). 393 pp.
* Prados, John. ''Lost Crusader: The Secret Wars of CIA Director William Colby.'' (2003). 380 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/103547153?title=Lost%20Crusader%3a%20The%20Secret%20Wars%20of%20CIA%20Director%20William%20Colby online edition]
* Prados, John. ''Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA.'' (2006). 696 pp
* Richelson, Jeffrey T. ''The Wizards of Langley: Inside the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology.'' (2001). 386 pp.
* Richelson, Jeffrey T. ''The U.S. Intelligence Community'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/59323941?title=The%20U.S.%20Intelligence%20Community online edition]
* Russell, Richard L. ''Sharpening Strategic Intelligence: Why the CIA Gets It Wrong and What Needs to Be Done to Get It Right.'' (2007). 232 pp.
* Saunders, Francis Stonor. ''The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters.'' (2000). 509 pp.
* Scott-Smith, Giles. ''The Politics of Apolitical Culture: The Congress for Cultural Freedom, the CIA, and Post-War American Hegemony.'' (2002). 233 pp.
* Taubman, Philip. ''Secret Empire: Eisenhower, the CIA, and the Hidden Story of America's Space Espionage.'' (2003). 441 pp
* Thomas, Evan. ''The Very Best Men. Four Who Dared: The Early Years of the CIA.'' (1995). 427 pp.
* Troy, Thomas F. ''Wild Bill and Intrepid: Donovan, Stephenson, and the Origin of CIA.'' (1996). 259 pp.
* Wise, David. ''Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the CIA''. (1992). Source on James Jesus Angleton's searches inside the CIA, and on the Golitsyn-Nosenko controversy.
* Woodward, Bob. ''Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987'' (2005)
* Zegart, Amy B. ''Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC.'' (1999). 317 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/35536329?title=Flawed%20by%20Design%3a%20The%20Evolution%20of%20the%20CIA%2c%20JCS%2c%20and%20NSC online edition]

===Primary sources and memoirs===
* Central Intelligence Agency. ''A Compendium of Analytic Tradecraft Notes'' (1997) http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/tradecraft_notes/contents.htm. The basic training guide for CIA analysts.
* Cullather, Nick. ''Secret History: The CIA's Classified Account of Its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954.'' (1999). 142 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/79224452?title=Secret%20History%3a%20The%20CIA's%20Classified%20Account%20of%20Its%20Operations%20in%20Guatemala%2c%201952-1954 online edition]
* Gates, Robert. ''From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War,'' (1997).
* McAuliffe, Mary S., ed. ''CIA Documents on the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962.'' (1992). 376 pp.
* Murphy, David E.; Kondrashev, Sergei A.; and Bailey, George. ''Battleground Berlin: CIA vs. KGB in the Cold War.'' (1997). 530 pp. brings together personal recollections from CIA and KGB officers, and previously unpublished documents.
* Tenet, George. ''At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA'' (2007), DCI 1997 to 2004
* Turner, Stansfield. ''Secrecy and Democracy: The CIA in Transition.'' (1985). 304 pp.
* Westerfield, H. Bradford, ed. ''Inside CIA's Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency's Internal Journal, 1955-1992.'' (1995). 489 pp.

====references====
<references/>
[[Category:Espionage]]
[[Category:Intelligence Agencies]]
[[Category:United States Intelligence Agencies]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-11-01T15:20:03Z

SteveSpagnola:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills. Has chosen the celebrity lifestyle over true sports greatness.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Barry Bonds]] - all his baseball records were due to his extensive use of steroids.
#[[Alex Sanchez]] - same as Bonds.
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Jeremy Lin]] - "Linsanity" took hold of nation as a result of point guard who, by all accounts, is above average, but not one of the league's elite. His FG percentage and scoring were inflated with the lack of Carmello Anthony, and he had a knack for turning the ball over in the play-offs.
#[[Tim Tebow]] Despite success at the collegiate level, his style of play has translated to only modest NFL success. The accuracy of his throws are suspect, and he does not make good football decisions. Demoted from starter by Jet's coaching staff.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] - he ''"won"'' the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times due to “''the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen''”.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Talk:American Government Lecture Three 2007

2012-09-23T17:52:45Z

SteveSpagnola: /* Errors */ new section

Might I make the suggestion that Ross Perot cost George Bush Sr. the election in 1992 with his 19% of the popular vote (a huge amount for a third party candidate).--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 19:10, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Errors ==

You seem to have made a couple errors in your lecture. For example:

The Salem Witch trials were not, strictly speaking, poor v. rich. There were a number of groups that became victims, though a large number of the earliest victims were poor and widowed.

The Constitutional Convention was not kept secret because of the media. The delegates merely wished for their work to be done without interference from the general public.

[[User:SteveSpagnola|SteveSpagnola]] 13:52, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-08T22:05:23Z

SteveSpagnola: Undo revision 1005040 by Visionary (talk) No, it's enlightening

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills. Has chosen the celebrity lifestyle over true sports greatness.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Lance Armstrong]] - won every title in cycling, but has since turned out to have won them all by taking vast amounts of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
#[[Barry Bonds]] - all his baseball records were due to his extensive use of steroids.
#[[Alex Sanchez]] - same as Bonds.
#[[Tiger Woods]] - had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Tim Tebow]] Despite success at the collegiate level, his style of play has translated to only modest NFL success. The accuracy of his throws are suspect, and he does not make good football decisions. Demoted from starter by Jet's coaching staff.
#[[Jeremy Lin]] "Linsanity" took hold of nation as a result of point guard who, by all accounts, is above average, but not one of the league's elite. His FG percentage and scoring were inflated with the lack of Carmello Anthony, and he had a knack for turning the ball over in the play-offs.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-08T21:06:23Z

SteveSpagnola: Undo revision 1005035 by Visionary (talk) Mr. Schlafly said that reverts can be done in the name of enlightening people

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills. Has chosen the celebrity lifestyle over true sports greatness.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Lance Armstrong]] - won every title in cycling, but has since turned out to have won them all by taking vast amounts of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
#[[Barry Bonds]] - all his baseball records were due to his extensive use of steroids.
#[[Alex Sanchez]] - same as Bonds.
#[[Tiger Woods]] - had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Tim Tebow]] Despite success at the collegiate level, his style of play has translated to only modest NFL success. The accuracy of his throws are suspect, and he does not make good football decisions. Demoted from starter by Jet's coaching staff.
#[[Jeremy Lin]] "Linsanity" took hold of nation as a result of point guard who, by all accounts, is above average, but not one of the league's elite. His FG percentage and scoring were inflated with the lack of Carmello Anthony, and he had a knack for turning the ball over in the play-offs.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-08T20:41:32Z

SteveSpagnola:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills. Has chosen the celebrity lifestyle over true sports greatness.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Lance Armstrong]] - won every title in cycling, but has since turned out to have won them all by taking vast amounts of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
#[[Barry Bonds]] - all his baseball records were due to his extensive use of steroids.
#[[Alex Sanchez]] - same as Bonds.
#[[Tiger Woods]] - had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Tim Tebow]] Despite success at the collegiate level, his style of play has translated to only modest NFL success. The accuracy of his throws are suspect, and he does not make good football decisions. Demoted from starter by Jet's coaching staff.
#[[Jeremy Lin]] "Linsanity" took hold of nation as a result of point guard who, by all accounts, is above average, but not one of the league's elite. His FG percentage and scoring were inflated with the lack of Carmello Anthony, and he had a knack for turning the ball over in the play-offs.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2012-09-08T20:41:08Z

SteveSpagnola: Please, Warner had a HoF RB in Marshall Faulk and two Pro-Bowl WRs in Holt and Bruce. Hardly "underachieving"

Most sports stars are probably [[conservative]]. Athletes at all levels of competition frequently praise [[God]] for giving them the strength to succeed at their sports. Here are some of the greatest:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|Novak Djokovic
|tennis
|Former number 1 player in the world, Novak gives glory to God with the sign of the [[Crucifixion|Cross]] after big tennis victories.

|-
|[[Tim Tebow]]
|football<ref>The first college sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]], and the only quarterback to lead his team to two [[BCS]] college championships.</ref>
|[[pro-life]], outspoken Christian; an analyst for the [[lamestream media]] said about him, "You need to disappear, okay, [[Tim Tebow]]?"<ref>Tedy Bruschi continued to say about Tebow, "You're not the starting quarterback, it's Mark Sanchez's team. I want my voice to come from my head coach and my quarterback -- my starting quarterback. That message has to be consistent. I don't want all this competition brewing, and every time you speak and anytime you talk about competition or anything like that, you're twisting things," he went on. "I want one voice. One quarterback, not two." [http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829b6a76/article/tedy-bruschi-thinks-tim-tebow-should-pipe-down Tedy Bruschi thinks Tim Tebow should pipe down] nfl.com, retrieved June 26, 2012. (Tedi Bruschi was a former New England Patriots linebacker.)</ref> Pressed for a response, Tebow simply smiled and said, "I can't help him with that. That would be pretty hard."<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/06/jets-tim-tebow-on-tedy-bruschis-advice-i-just-do-what-im-told/1?loc=interstitialskip</ref>
|-
|Josh Hamilton
|baseball
|Used to be a drug addict, then became a born-again Christian and plays major league baseball now. He has appeared on Glenn Beck's show to talk about his faith and addiction.
|-
|Matt Hasselbeck
|football
|Pro Bowl quarterback is a Christian who lends his name to "Tweet for Youcef" campaign organized by the [[ACLJ]], in support of the Iranian Christian pastor who has been sentenced to death.
|-
|Bill Laimbeer
|basketball
|led the [[Detroit Pistons]] to two [[NBA]] titles by defeating [[Michael Jordan]], [[Larry Bird]] and [[Magic Johnson]]; for a center, Laimbeer had an amazing outside shot and free-throw percentage, showing the versatility of a [[conservative]]; illustrating their [[double standard]], liberals whined about Laimbeer's rough style of play, without complaining about [[Dennis Rodman]]
|-
|Tim Thomas
|hockey
|A [[conservative]], Thomas declined to attend a ceremony staged by the [[Obama]] [[White House]] after Thomas's team won the [[Stanley Cup]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/boston-bruins-goalie-snubs-president-obama-111928.html</ref> Thomas is a four-time [[NHL]] All-Star as a goalie - a great conservative position to play!<ref>http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=610011</ref>
|-
|Curt Schilling
|baseball
|led the hopeless [[Boston Red Sox]] to a stunning [[World Series]] championship in 2004 after defeating the [[liberal]] [[New York Yankees]] in the American League Championship Series; for an encore he helped Scott Brown win "[[Ted Kennedy|Kennedy]]'s seat," an even greater upset. Also was co-MVP of the 2001 World Series, in which he helped the Arizona Diamondbacks defeat the Yankees in one of the biggest World Series upsets in history.
|-
|[[Jim Bunning]]
|baseball
|former Republican Senator (KY); he pitched a perfect game with the fewest pitches ever in the National League (only 90) -- like a true conservative! Bunning is also one of only five players to pitch a no-hitter in both the National and American Leagues.
|-
|George Allen
|football coach
|The father of [[conservative]] Senator George Allen, the coach ran a trick play once for President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/GOP_drafts_NFL_talent-53346877.html</ref>
|-
|Mike Ditka
|football player and coach
|outspoken pro-lifer when he was considering running for public office
|-
|Philip Rivers
|football
|endorsed [[Rick Santorum]] with a strong statement on religious values
|-
|Janet Lynn
|figure skating<ref name="Lynn">"Considered One of the Greatest Freeskaters of All Time." [http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousfemaleiceskater1/p/janetlynn.htm]</ref>
|"Before every performance she would close her eyes and give thanks and praise to God. She believed that God had given her the gift of skating and in each performance she worked to glorify God."<ref name="Lynn"/> Lynn, once the highest-paid female athlete, also has written in support of conservative values.
|-
|[[Ted Williams]]
|baseball
|campaigned for Republicans, served as a fighter pilot, and also criticized the media, which was unfair to him, even denying him the MVP when he hit over .400 in 1941. It could be argued that [[Joe DiMaggio]]'s 56-game hit streak was more impressive that year, but the media bias was clearly a factor in the vote. One sportswriter inexplicably left Williams off his ballot entirely.
|-
|[[Kurt Warner]]
|football
|pro-lifer who led two ''different'' teams to the [[Super Bowl]], one of whom was the underachieving Cardinals.
|-
|[[Zach Johnson]]
|golf
|won the [[Masters]] on [[Easter Sunday]] against the heavily favored Tiger Woods,<ref>http://www.fcagolf.org/masters-peace</ref> when Woods was at the peak of his career, and then gave credit to [[Jesus Christ]]
|-
|Trevor Bayne
|auto racing
|Gave credit to God for being the youngest Daytona 500 winner
|-
|Pete Sampras
|tennis<ref>Winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.</ref>
|Held the record for the longest time as #1 in the world -- more than 5 years -- until tied by Roger Federer due to his winning Wimbledon in 2012.
|-
|[[Mary Lou Retton]]
|gymnastics
|Olympic gold medalist, delivered the Pledge of Allegiance at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
|-
|Karl Malone
|basketball
|NBA Most Valuable Player and All-Star selection. He overcame troubled youth years and became a role model. Donated to the George W. Bush campaign and visited our troops in Afghanistan.
|-
|[[Jon Runyan]]
|football
|Republican Congressman (NJ)
|-
|Steve Largent
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[Jack Kemp]]
|football
|author of Kemp-Roth tax cuts as a Republican congressman from upstate [[New York]]; was also the vice presidential Republican candidate in 1996
|-
|Drew Brees
|football
|Led the [[New Orleans Saints]] to victory in the 2009 [[Super Bowl]]--professed his belief in Jesus Christ. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t0buCfbFuHw STV Interview with Drew Brees]</ref>
|-
|Chris Dudley
|basketball
|Republican nominee for Oregon governor
|-
|[[Jim Ryun]]
|track
|former Republican Congressman (KS)
|-
|[[J.C. Watts]]
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[John Elway]]
|football
|supporter of Republican candidates
|-
|Lynn Swann
|football
|Republican candidate for governor (PA)
|-
|Jeff Suppan
|baseball
|did a pro-life ad while winning the World Series in 2006
|-
|Billy Sunday
|baseball
|Left professional baseball and became a famous evangelist
|-
|Rick Monday
|baseball
|In 1976 he saved an American Flag from burning at the hands of two protestors
|-
|Dan Hampton
|football
|helped lead the Chicago Bears to their 1985 Super Bowl title, but declined an invitation to a ceremony held decades later by the [[Obama]] White House.
|-
|Paul Azinger
|golf
|PGA champion who criticized Obama
|-
|Jack Lynch
|hurling
|One of the greatest ever dual players. As Taoiseach, reduced taxes and thereby increased employment in Ireland.
|-
|Lewis Hamilton
|auto racing
|outspoken Christian, describing his 2008 world championship win as "a blessing"
|-
|Doug Flutie
|football
|endorsed [[RINO]] [[Scott Brown]]
|-
|Michael Jones
|rugby
|His Christian beliefs caused him to abstain from playing or training on Sundays. Recently endorsed the conservative New Zealand National Party
|-
|David Icke
|soccer
|Currently best known for his outspoken opposition to attempts by [[liberal]]s to control government and people's lives.
|-
|Ewan Murray
|rugby
|Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays.
|-
|Eric Liddell
|track
|Honoured in both Scotland and China as one of their great-ever athletes, Liddell refused to run in the 1924 Olympic 100m on a Sunday. Instead, he competed in the 400m and, though it was not his best event, he won the gold medal! Returned to China as a missionary and was devoted to helping the sick and poor.
|-
|Gavin Peacock
|soccer
|Attacking midfielder for Newcastle, Chelsea and QPR then a respected footballer commentator. From 2006, combined commentating with attending a seminary. Now training full-time for the ministry.
|-
|Jason Robinson
|rugby
|Becoming a born-again Christian enabled him to reform his troubled personal life
|-
|Ryan Hall
|Track
|Evangelical Christian, said God was his trainer
|-
|[[Annie Oakley]]
|Sharpshooter
|Came to fame in her teens as an exhibition shooter, later to international fame in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show.
|-
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|Football
|Played center and linebacker for the [[University of Michigan]] and led them to two undefeated championship seasons. He was later offered professional contracts by two NFL franchises, but declined in order to attend law school. Later, Ford became minority of the [[House of Representatives]] (and , and then was appointed [[Vice President]] following the resignation of [[Spiro Agnew]] in the wake of the [[Wategrate]] scandal. When President [[Richard Nixon]] resigned shortly thereafter due to his role in the scandal, Ford became the first (and only) President of the United States never elected President or Vice President.
|}

== Stars Who Have Taken a Conservative or Religious Position ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|Gabby Douglas
|Gymnastics
|Gave glory to God upon making the cut to represent the United States in the [[Olympics 2012|2012 Olympics]], and won the gold in the All-Around competition, as well as with the United States team event.
|-
|A.C. Green
|basketball
|record-holder for the longest number of consecutive games in the rough, injury-prone [[NBA]], Green has long been an outspoken advocate of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Lolo Jones
|Olympic hurdler
|outspoken supporter of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Al Oerter
|track and field
|a self-confessed "old fashioned Olympian",<ref>http://www.sify.com/sports/olympics/Profile/Al_Oerter.html</ref> this four-time Olympics discus champion spoke out against the use of steroids and their harmful effects during a time when other athletes were relying on them
|-
|Bubba Smith
|football
|one of the greatest defensive lineman, Bubba Smith gave up a lucrative contract to do beer commercials because he was concerned about the effect that alcohol has on people
|-
|David Tyree
|football
|hero of the upset victory by the New York Giants in the 2008 [[Super Bowl]] with a phenomenal catch, Tyree spoke out against [[same-sex marriage]], and later tweeted: "People of [[faith]] ... direct some prayers my way. Got darts comin from every direction. Blessed are those persecuted for [[Jesus|His name]]'s sake."<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=6667583</ref>
|-
|Honus Wagner
|baseball
|great shortstop of the early 20th century. refused to be on baseball cards that promoted cigarettes.
|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Television Shows]]
*[[Overrated Sports Stars]]
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-05T20:04:37Z

SteveSpagnola: Undo revision 1004059 by Aschlafly (talk) Sir, you could at least explain WHY you are blanket reverting

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-04T19:54:08Z

SteveSpagnola: Hardly failing to fulfill potential when he's consistently one of the top goal-scoring strikers in the world

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-04T19:52:17Z

SteveSpagnola: Removing obvious HoF caliber players. As for Boomer, he got to the championship with an intricate offense, he just ran into Joe Montana, a sizeable obstacle