Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-19T20:58:22Z

Timber2: Corr

I think this article should be titled '''Wuhan coronavirus''' instead, as the current title is the result of the fact that the WHO is owned by Red China, also see previous articles [[Wuhan coronavirus - Chinese Communist Party response]] and [[Global Wuhan coronavirus pandemic]]. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:You make a good point about the proper name of the virus. However, it can be counterproductive to overdo issues re: nomenclature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
::The Chinese had no problem with "Wuhan coronavirus" until they decided to blame America for it, which was about a week ago. (They were hoping that the virus would be seen as something local to Wuhan.) As far as the recent edits go, the opening of an article should of course correspond to its title. So long as the title of this article is "COVID-19," it can't open with "Wuhan virus." In addition, I don't think we should call it "China virus" or "CCP virus" anywhere. Yeah, there is German measles and Spanish flu. But that's not how viruses get named in the modern, globalized era. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Marxist head of the WHO, Covid-19 is the disease, not the virus. 2019-nCoV is the strain of virus. I disagree about CCP virus. It was the CCP, in collusion with the WHO, that politicized the name of the virus, and the CCP virus does not attach itself specifically to a location or nationality. It does attach itself to the political entity that created a global pandemic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 02:44, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Rep. Paul Gosar just tweeted a [https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1245378703833681920 poll] and the results were that "CCP virus" was the winner. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
==Chloroquine==
Watching a live broadcast right now that covers latest developments on chloroquine. The Dr. Zelenko stuff begins about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Gy9nPAQE0 14:23]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:46, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:The section on this drug looks to be out of date. See this recent advisory from Alberta Health Services [https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-rapid-response-report.pdf]. Some warning at least is presumably needed. However, another odd-sounding source Llama saliva may really help. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::I also found this warning from Health Canada [https://globalnews.ca/news/6869868/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-warning/]. It is to be regretted that it hasn't been the miracle that some hoped. And from France 24 [https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-studies-see-no-benefit-in-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-patients] --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

:::The FDA has now issued this warning: "FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems".<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref> --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::[[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] I thought that it would be better if you dealt with this, as a major editor of this page. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:01, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::There is also the fact that hydroxychloroquine remains essential for the well-being of those suffering from [[rheumatoid arthritis]], some symptoms of [[lupus]], childhood arthritis (or juvenile idiopathic arthritis) and other [[autoimmune diseases]], for whom any shortage would be life threatening. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:22, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

==Zelenko==
Isolating Zelenko into a separate subheading may have the opposite effect of marginalizing Zelenko as a quack; rather it should be highlighted that Zelenko's treatment has been approved for expanded nationwide use. The treatment in mainstream. I suggest renaming the subhead and expanding the section to include information about about [[partisan]] anti-science Democrat governors ([[War on science]]} willing to let their people die. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-19T20:56:12Z

Timber2: /* Debate needs a summary */ Heaven?

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

:A lot of this debate is barking up the wrong tree. You are a ''socialist'' if you '''say that you are for socialism'''. If your real aim is a permanent totalitarian society (with you and your buddies at the top), that doesn't mean the proponents of socialism get to take that label away from you.

:The whole point of the critique of socialism is that it is '''inherently anti-freedom'''. Every movement, every political party, every government that has tried to "build socialism" has failed because the ways and means contradict the end. You can't force people into freely sharing what they have with others. It's against human nature. You can harness man's charitable and philanthropic inclinations, but you can't ''rob the rich and give to the poor'' without a dictatorship. If you want universal prosperity, there must be a free market. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:47, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Communism and Socialism does not criticism Mammon; it advocates the transfer of Mammon worship and Mammon's power to a clique of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 21:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, this is ☭Comrade GC☭ at an atheist website.

He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times and another administrator at the website blocked me after the website imposed arbitrary and authoritarian rules. I am referring to [[Essay: Why RationalWiki is dying|THIS WEBSITE]].

Of course, it isn't working. Why would anyone feel threatened by someone who resorts to deleting material after they prove themselves incapable of debate?

RobSmith, ask him why the Soviet Union collapsed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:It's a debate raging for years, whether there is some altruistic motive behind Marxism and hairsplitting over the degree to which atheistic and murderous ideologies can be criticized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 11:22, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::[[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], obviously you remain convinced that there is no difference between socialism and communism. While the USSR's communists failed, socialism most certainly hasn't. Millions of people throughout the world, who were not born into wealth, can attest to that fact. All political parties in Canada, Britain, and numerous other countries have had to modify their ideologies because of the success of socialist ideas, even the Republican Party. Recently, I was heartened to learn of Robert M. La Follette Sr., a Republican senator for Wisconsin (1906 to 1925), who supported child labour laws, social security, women’s suffrage, and other progressive reforms. He even ran for President in 1924 as a Progressive. But maybe it's Christianity that has been the influence on such Republicans rather than socialism?

::So it looks like the article will remain seriously flawed for now? I note, however, Conservapedia's strange enthusiasm (overall) for former communist [[Vladimir Putin]]. Actually though a communist, interestingly, he apparently was baptised.

:::[[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]], I fail to understand your comments. Are you suggesting that I am another person, with whom you've had a major conflict with elsewhere: "He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times"? Please clarify. I'd forgotten that the site mentioned even existed. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
::The difference between socialism and communism, ''per'' Marx's own writings, socialism is the phase of communism in a politically pluralist society prior to socialist gaining ascendency and outlawing political opposition. Ideologically, there is no difference. They are two sides of the same coin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 13:16, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::As I've already noted you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Are you a historian or political scientist? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::::See [[Labour party]] for a more balanced article on socialism in Britain.

I don't think it's helpful to conflate socialism and Marxism (or liberalism, for that matter), particularly in the British case. British socialism was forged from non-conformist protestant Christianity not in the 1800s, when the reform movement led to the co-operative and Labour movements, not in 1700s, when radicals looked to France and the US for new ways of thinking, but in the 1600s in the same crucible that gave is the Pilgrim Fathers. 1649 saw "The World Turned Upside Down" and many saw a chance to turn Britain into a Christian state, starting with land and property reform to bring us closer to the prelapsarian ideal.

Ironically, this may be the root of the huge difference - and gulf in understanding - between British and US conservatism. It's no coincidence that, until the 1970s and 80s, it was the British left that looked to the US as an example. Conservatives tended to look within or to Europe. [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 19:03, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

This leaves me wondering how [[William Blake]] might fit into the picture? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
:SEE BELOW? Does this conversation continue in the next section? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:12, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

===Roots===
The expansion of the "Roots" section might help solve the continuing debate. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:17, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

==Debate needs a summary==

Proponents of socialism like to claim that the [[National Socialism]] of Nazi Germany was by no means socialist. Why do they do that? (What's their motivation?) And are they right? Or are they pulling the wool over our eyes?

Snopes asserts that
:Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.
But the same may be said for '''every Communist movement''' of the 20th century. No Communist Party ever "achieved communism" or "true socialism" because that was never their goal. Their aim was always total control, and the excuse they used was that they were "building socialism". So claiming the Nazis weren't socialists because they didn't actually fulfill [[socialist ideals]] is a red herring. That's like saying the Communists weren't really Communists.

The problem with analyzing socialism is that there are so many lies involved. The Communists of China and Russia and Cuba and so on claimed to be working toward socialism (the [[classless society]] of a communist utopia) but like The Party in ''[[1984]]'' they really wanted one thing more than anything else: power. Fascism and Communism are "totalitarian twins".

Let's get to the bottom of this and settle this debate once and for all. Perhaps we can take a look at Dinesh D'Souza or PragerU for further details. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:39, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

:I presume that this comment relates to the previous section. I don't know about the people named (Dinesh D'Souza or PragerU ) but with regard to Socialism in Britain [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] comments are very stimulating and I would be interested in what sources he might recommend, and if he plans on adding new content. A fuller discussion of European Socialism is also badly needed. And what about Tolstoy in Russia? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (EDT)
::I've always applied a simple solution to the problem Ed so clearly outlined - strip away all pretenses to altruism, and look at (a) the actual record, and (b) which actually defines its true motives and aims. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 13:43, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

:You wish to ignore reality, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]: That there are people on both the left and on the right who are selfish. Capitalism has a valued role to play but exploitive capitalism is destructive to all (and ironically to the economy). You oversimplify. Taken literally the politics you espouse would lead to one party rule – that is what extremists of all ilk want. Most Conservatives, Liberals, and Socialist, are democrats. Do you really believe that everyone on the political Right is Godly and altruistic, to use your word? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:13, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

::What does Christianity have to say about wealth? I cannot find anything here. My starting point is Matthew 19:24. Going to Wikipedia I discover that there are two main views. I had sort of forgotten that Christianity too has its left, right, and presumably middle. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-19T20:13:54Z

Timber2: /* Debate needs a summary */ Altruism of the Right?

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-19T17:17:33Z

Timber2: /* Christian socialism */ Roots

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-19T17:12:21Z

Timber2: See below?

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

:A lot of this debate is barking up the wrong tree. You are a ''socialist'' if you '''say that you are for socialism'''. If your real aim is a permanent totalitarian society (with you and your buddies at the top), that doesn't mean the proponents of socialism get to take that label away from you.

:The whole point of the critique of socialism is that it is '''inherently anti-freedom'''. Every movement, every political party, every government that has tried to "build socialism" has failed because the ways and means contradict the end. You can't force people into freely sharing what they have with others. It's against human nature. You can harness man's charitable and philanthropic inclinations, but you can't ''rob the rich and give to the poor'' without a dictatorship. If you want universal prosperity, there must be a free market. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:47, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Communism and Socialism does not criticism Mammon; it advocates the transfer of Mammon worship and Mammon's power to a clique of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 21:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, this is ☭Comrade GC☭ at an atheist website.

He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times and another administrator at the website blocked me after the website imposed arbitrary and authoritarian rules. I am referring to [[Essay: Why RationalWiki is dying|THIS WEBSITE]].

Of course, it isn't working. Why would anyone feel threatened by someone who resorts to deleting material after they prove themselves incapable of debate?

RobSmith, ask him why the Soviet Union collapsed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:It's a debate raging for years, whether there is some altruistic motive behind Marxism and hairsplitting over the degree to which atheistic and murderous ideologies can be criticized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 11:22, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::[[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], obviously you remain convinced that there is no difference between socialism and communism. While the USSR's communists failed, socialism most certainly hasn't. Millions of people throughout the world, who were not born into wealth, can attest to that fact. All political parties in Canada, Britain, and numerous other countries have had to modify their ideologies because of the success of socialist ideas, even the Republican Party. Recently, I was heartened to learn of Robert M. La Follette Sr., a Republican senator for Wisconsin (1906 to 1925), who supported child labour laws, social security, women’s suffrage, and other progressive reforms. He even ran for President in 1924 as a Progressive. But maybe it's Christianity that has been the influence on such Republicans rather than socialism?

::So it looks like the article will remain seriously flawed for now? I note, however, Conservapedia's strange enthusiasm (overall) for former communist [[Vladimir Putin]]. Actually though a communist, interestingly, he apparently was baptised.

:::[[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]], I fail to understand your comments. Are you suggesting that I am another person, with whom you've had a major conflict with elsewhere: "He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times"? Please clarify. I'd forgotten that the site mentioned even existed. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
::The difference between socialism and communism, ''per'' Marx's own writings, socialism is the phase of communism in a politically pluralist society prior to socialist gaining ascendency and outlawing political opposition. Ideologically, there is no difference. They are two sides of the same coin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 13:16, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::As I've already noted you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Are you a historian or political scientist? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::::See [[Labour party]] for a more balanced article on socialism in Britain.

I don't think it's helpful to conflate socialism and Marxism (or liberalism, for that matter), particularly in the British case. British socialism was forged from non-conformist protestant Christianity not in the 1800s, when the reform movement led to the co-operative and Labour movements, not in 1700s, when radicals looked to France and the US for new ways of thinking, but in the 1600s in the same crucible that gave is the Pilgrim Fathers. 1649 saw "The World Turned Upside Down" and many saw a chance to turn Britain into a Christian state, starting with land and property reform to bring us closer to the prelapsarian ideal.

Ironically, this may be the root of the huge difference - and gulf in understanding - between British and US conservatism. It's no coincidence that, until the 1970s and 80s, it was the British left that looked to the US as an example. Conservatives tended to look within or to Europe. [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 19:03, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

This leaves me wondering how [[William Blake]] might fit into the picture? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
:SEE BELOW? Does this conversation continue in the next section? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:12, 19 May 2020 (EDT)
==Debate needs a summary==

Proponents of socialism like to claim that the [[National Socialism]] of Nazi Germany was by no means socialist. Why do they do that? (What's their motivation?) And are they right? Or are they pulling the wool over our eyes?

Snopes asserts that
:Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.
But the same may be said for '''every Communist movement''' of the 20th century. No Communist Party ever "achieved communism" or "true socialism" because that was never their goal. Their aim was always total control, and the excuse they used was that they were "building socialism". So claiming the Nazis weren't socialists because they didn't actually fulfill [[socialist ideals]] is a red herring. That's like saying the Communists weren't really Communists.

The problem with analyzing socialism is that there are so many lies involved. The Communists of China and Russia and Cuba and so on claimed to be working toward socialism (the [[classless society]] of a communist utopia) but like The Party in ''[[1984]]'' they really wanted one thing more than anything else: power. Fascism and Communism are "totalitarian twins".

Let's get to the bottom of this and settle this debate once and for all. Perhaps we can take a look at Dinesh D'Souza or PragerU for further details. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:39, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

:I presume that this comment relates to the previous section. I don't know about the people named (Dinesh D'Souza or PragerU ) but with regard to Socialism in Britain [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] comments are very stimulating and I would be interested in what sources he might recommend, and if he plans on adding new content. A fuller discussion of European Socialism is also badly needed. And what about Tolstoy in Russia? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-19T17:05:03Z

Timber2: /* Debate needs a summary */ Right place?

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

:A lot of this debate is barking up the wrong tree. You are a ''socialist'' if you '''say that you are for socialism'''. If your real aim is a permanent totalitarian society (with you and your buddies at the top), that doesn't mean the proponents of socialism get to take that label away from you.

:The whole point of the critique of socialism is that it is '''inherently anti-freedom'''. Every movement, every political party, every government that has tried to "build socialism" has failed because the ways and means contradict the end. You can't force people into freely sharing what they have with others. It's against human nature. You can harness man's charitable and philanthropic inclinations, but you can't ''rob the rich and give to the poor'' without a dictatorship. If you want universal prosperity, there must be a free market. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:47, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Communism and Socialism does not criticism Mammon; it advocates the transfer of Mammon worship and Mammon's power to a clique of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 21:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, this is ☭Comrade GC☭ at an atheist website.

He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times and another administrator at the website blocked me after the website imposed arbitrary and authoritarian rules. I am referring to [[Essay: Why RationalWiki is dying|THIS WEBSITE]].

Of course, it isn't working. Why would anyone feel threatened by someone who resorts to deleting material after they prove themselves incapable of debate?

RobSmith, ask him why the Soviet Union collapsed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:It's a debate raging for years, whether there is some altruistic motive behind Marxism and hairsplitting over the degree to which atheistic and murderous ideologies can be criticized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 11:22, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::[[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], obviously you remain convinced that there is no difference between socialism and communism. While the USSR's communists failed, socialism most certainly hasn't. Millions of people throughout the world, who were not born into wealth, can attest to that fact. All political parties in Canada, Britain, and numerous other countries have had to modify their ideologies because of the success of socialist ideas, even the Republican Party. Recently, I was heartened to learn of Robert M. La Follette Sr., a Republican senator for Wisconsin (1906 to 1925), who supported child labour laws, social security, women’s suffrage, and other progressive reforms. He even ran for President in 1924 as a Progressive. But maybe it's Christianity that has been the influence on such Republicans rather than socialism?

::So it looks like the article will remain seriously flawed for now? I note, however, Conservapedia's strange enthusiasm (overall) for former communist [[Vladimir Putin]]. Actually though a communist, interestingly, he apparently was baptised.

:::[[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]], I fail to understand your comments. Are you suggesting that I am another person, with whom you've had a major conflict with elsewhere: "He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times"? Please clarify. I'd forgotten that the site mentioned even existed. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
::The difference between socialism and communism, ''per'' Marx's own writings, socialism is the phase of communism in a politically pluralist society prior to socialist gaining ascendency and outlawing political opposition. Ideologically, there is no difference. They are two sides of the same coin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 13:16, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::As I've already noted you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Are you a historian or political scientist? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::::See [[Labour party]] for a more balanced article on socialism in Britain.

I don't think it's helpful to conflate socialism and Marxism (or liberalism, for that matter), particularly in the British case. British socialism was forged from non-conformist protestant Christianity not in the 1800s, when the reform movement led to the co-operative and Labour movements, not in 1700s, when radicals looked to France and the US for new ways of thinking, but in the 1600s in the same crucible that gave is the Pilgrim Fathers. 1649 saw "The World Turned Upside Down" and many saw a chance to turn Britain into a Christian state, starting with land and property reform to bring us closer to the prelapsarian ideal.

Ironically, this may be the root of the huge difference - and gulf in understanding - between British and US conservatism. It's no coincidence that, until the 1970s and 80s, it was the British left that looked to the US as an example. Conservatives tended to look within or to Europe. [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 19:03, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

This leaves me wondering how [[William Blake]] might fit into the picture? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

==Debate needs a summary==

Proponents of socialism like to claim that the [[National Socialism]] of Nazi Germany was by no means socialist. Why do they do that? (What's their motivation?) And are they right? Or are they pulling the wool over our eyes?

Snopes asserts that
:Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.
But the same may be said for '''every Communist movement''' of the 20th century. No Communist Party ever "achieved communism" or "true socialism" because that was never their goal. Their aim was always total control, and the excuse they used was that they were "building socialism". So claiming the Nazis weren't socialists because they didn't actually fulfill [[socialist ideals]] is a red herring. That's like saying the Communists weren't really Communists.

The problem with analyzing socialism is that there are so many lies involved. The Communists of China and Russia and Cuba and so on claimed to be working toward socialism (the [[classless society]] of a communist utopia) but like The Party in ''[[1984]]'' they really wanted one thing more than anything else: power. Fascism and Communism are "totalitarian twins".

Let's get to the bottom of this and settle this debate once and for all. Perhaps we can take a look at Dinesh D'Souza or PragerU for further details. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:39, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

:I presume that this comment relates to the previous section. I don't know about the people named (Dinesh D'Souza or PragerU ) but with regard to Socialism in Britain [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] comments are very stimulating and I would be interested in what sources he might recommend, and if he plans on adding new content. A fuller discussion of European Socialism is also badly needed. And what about Tolstoy in Russia? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

COVID-19

2020-05-19T16:41:13Z

Timber2: /* Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use */ Not exactly, more nuanced. Needs to be expanded. Approved for other diseases, etc. Clarify

<center>''See [[coronavirus]] for a more substantive explanation.''</center>
'''Coronavirus disease 2019''', or '''COVID-19''' or '''Covid-19''', is the name of the disease caused by a novel strain of the [[coronavirus]] (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) identified as originating in [[Wuhan, China]] in late November and early December 2019.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17], Josephine Ma, 13 Mar, 2020. www.scmp.com</ref> The reaction to the strain became [[pandemic]], reaching every continent on the planet by March 2020. Genetic mapping suggests that the Wuhan virus is related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) of 2002 and 2003 as well as to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 to the present. Covid-19 is considered highly infectious with an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2. The mortality rate is described as considerably less than 1 percent. By comparison, the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.1 percent, SARS was 9 to 10 percent, and MERS was 36 percent.<ref name="Fauci">Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., "[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted]," ''New England Journal of Medicine'', March 26, 2020.</ref>

A great deal of research is being conducted on this virus. The first vaccine candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring 2020. Therapy is currently limited to supportive care. Medication in current use include the antiviral drugs lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon-1β, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.<ref name="Fauci" />

Because of the [[virus]]' ability to replicate exponentially it is difficult to calculate the total number of people infected, as well as a definitive mortality rate. Quantifying total infections is hampered by the number of test kits available, as well as trained personnel to interpret the results of a novel, previously unknown, virus. The exponential rate of infections can overwhelm healthcare facilities and healthcare givers. With only experimental treatments available for a previously unknown virus, experts recommend persons with symptoms remain home so as to not infect others, or even if your symptoms are unrelated to Covid-19 you could become infected at hospitals where carriers likely are present.

Many carriers of the virus show no symptoms at all, and may never show symptoms. Social distancing, remaining at least 6 feet away from other people, is recommended to avoid infection and for an untested, [[asymptomatic]] (showing no symptoms) carrier to avoid spreading the virus. Each survivor of the virus must build immunity through antibodies. Therefore the size of a persons initial exposure to the virus is crucial.

Ultimately, experts have stated, some 80% of the planet will be exposed to the infection between 2019 and 2021. [[Herd immunity]] eventually will develop in the human species to survive against the infection. Until a widespread vaccine becomes available in later 2020 or in 2021, practicing such basic habits as handwashing, social distancing, wearing masks to avoid spreading or catching the infection, avoid touch the mucus membranes of your mouth, nose, and eyes, and other sanitary habits are highly recommended for persons who chose to survive this global [[pandemic]].

The virus has the ability to survive on surfaces, such as door knobs, money, tables, floors, etc. Maintaining cleanliness and avoiding contact with surfaces commonly used by the general public is also recommended.

== Atheistic, Chinese Communist Party and the COVID-19 pandemic ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic]]

The [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) mandates its members be [[atheists]] (see: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[militant atheism]] and [[State atheism]]).<ref>[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''</ref>

The CCP tried to cover up the emergence of the COVID-19 which prevented the pandemic being contained in its early stages.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>

China allowed thousands of COVID-19 infected people leave China during the early stage of the pandemic when the world was not aware of it.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-china-confronting-chinese-communist-party/ To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture], National Review</ref>

''The Atlantic'' reported concerning the role of the CCP to allow the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to spread in China and globally during its early stages:
{{Cquote|China has a history of mishandling outbreaks, including SARS in 2002 and 2003. But Chinese leaders’ negligence in December and January—for well over a month after the first outbreak in Wuhan—far surpasses those bungled responses. The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.”

This is what allowed the virus to spread across the globe. Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>}}

==Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use ==
''See also:'' [[Vladimir Zelenko]] and [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

As of March 27, 2020, the most successful doctor treating coronavirus patients is [[Vladimir Zelenko]], M.D. as none of this 699 patients have died or have required intubations whereas 1.5% of U.S. coronavirus patients die.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSHM1TK5tM Vladimir Zelenko: Important March 27, 2020 update regarding my coronavirus treatment regimen]</ref> See: [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

[[President Donald Trump]] expressed optimism that Dr. Zelenko's treatment could be expanded to meet the threat of the deadly disease during the national emergency. Several [[Democrat]] governors subsequently issued [[executive order]]s banning the treatment.<ref>https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/03/democrats-fear-cure.html</ref> [[War on science|Anti-science]] [[Democrat]] governors however, showing no regard for the lives of their people.

President Trump is now taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic (preventitive measure),<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfqJ1TkgP0 Donald Trump says he takes hydroxychloroquine drug for Covid-19]</ref> though he first checked with his personal physician that it was safe to do so (people with heart conditions should not take hydroxychloroquine).<ref>.[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref>

== Origin of Covid-19 virus ==
:{{See also|CCP pandemic coverup}}
Chinese students researchers indicated the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November 2019 from a place other than the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. A study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market.<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml</ref> The Chinese Communist Party deleted the page.

===''The Lancet'' disputes CCP wet market claims===
CCP propaganda outfits announced the virus may have originated at a government laboratory only 280 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. Disease-ridden animals, including more than 600 horseshoe bats, were kept at the facility. A Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, ''Ming Pao'', and the British daily, ''The Mirror'' explained that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, or WHCDC, could have spawned the contagion in Hubei Province. It stated that it's plausible the virus was leaked from the lab and contaminated initial patients in this epidemic. Sen. [[Tom Cotton]], citing ''The Lancet'', tweeted
{{quotebox|China claimed—for almost two months—that coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan seafood market. That is not the case. @TheLancet published a study demonstrating that of the original 40 cases, 14 of them had no contact with the seafood market, including Patient Zero.<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tom-cotton-implies-coronavirus-originated-in-wuhan-super-laboratory</ref>}}
This suggests that there was an earlier source of the virus that is unrelated to the seafood market and that has not yet been traced. If this theory is correct, the infection originated no later than November and infected the seafood market in December. The case histories and the pattern of infection were known to Chinese researchers from the beginning, so earlier reports fingering the market may have been intentionally misleading.<ref>Cohen, Jon, "[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally]," ''Science'', Jan. 26, 2020.</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'', which routinely publishes Chinese Communist [[propaganda]], blasted Sen. Cotton over his comments.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/washington-post-uses-chinese-propaganda-in-attempt-to-blast-sen-tom-cotton-over-coronavirus-comments/</ref>

On February 6, 2020 scientists from the South China University of Technology uploaded a paper on the origins of Coronavirus:
{{quotebox|The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory…… The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.<ref>http://archive.is/ATNpb</ref>}}
China's leftwing censors however deleted the content.<ref>https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831465/posts</ref>

===Dr. Li issues public warning===
[[Dr. Li Wenliang]] was an ophthalmologist in [[Wuhan, China]] who became a [[whistleblower]] and victim of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). Efforts by Dr. Li to alert the Chinese people to the danger of the [[CCP coronavirus]] in late December 2019, and his subsequent death 5 weeks later did not go unpunished. Dr. Li has been elevated to the status of saint and folk hero among the Chinese people.

On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li posted the lab test result of a coronavirus patient in a group chat to a class of about 150 students writing:
{{Quotebox|“7 cases of SARS have been confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market and they were isolated in the emergency department of our hospital. Please tell your families to take preventative measures.”}}
Some doctors confirmed that healthcare workers were starting to become infected around this time, a significant sign that the virus could spread between humans. Health officials in Wuhan were alerted. Instead of ramping up safety measures and alerting the public, on the same day they issued a notice forbidding all medical institutes or individuals from disclosing any information regarding the new disease. At midnight, Dr. Li was summoned by the CCP Security Police. They questioned him about why he was spreading rumors online.

On December 31, Wuhan's health commission posted an announcement about the outbreak on their website. They confirmed 27 cases of the infection and said there was no evidence that the disease was contagious among humans. According to a research paper written by Chinese officials, which was published later, the number of virus cases had reached at least 105 by the end of 2019. At that point, 15 people had already died. A media report also showed that one major hospital in Wuhan, Xiehe Hospital, was forced to transform an entire floor of the facility into “quarantine space for contagious disease.” [[Taiwan]] officials notified the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) that the virus was being spread from human-to-human.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/20/who-taiwan-coronavirus-warning/</ref> Communist party officials in China and military personnel began taking preventative measures, however the public was never alerted.

====8 doctors arrested for issuing public warnings====
On January 3, 2020 Dr. Li was asked to sign a confession to charges of committing [[crime]]s against the [[leftist]] regime, spreading “illegal and false” information and that he had “severely disrupted social order.” 7 other doctors also were charged. The confesion read:
{{quotebox|"On December 30, 2019, WeChat group "Clinical Wuhan University 04" issued untrue statements about 7 cases of SARS diagnosed in the South China fruit and seafood market. Now raise warnings and admonitions according to law on the illegal issue of untrue statements on the [[Internet]]. Your behavior severely disrupts social order. Your behavior has exceeded the scope permitted by [[law]], and it violates the relevant provisions of the Law of the [[People's Republic of China]] on Public Security Management Penalties, which is an [[illegal]] act! The public security organ hopes that you will actively cooperate with your work, follow the advice of the [[police]], and stop the illegal behavior. can you do it? Answer: Yes We hope that you calm down and reflect carefully, and solemnly warn you: if you are stubborn, do not think about [[repentance]], and continue to carry out illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! do you understand? Answer: understand"<ref>WikiCommons, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E6%9D%8E%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%9A%84%E8%AE%AD%E8%AF%AB%E4%B9%A6.png File:李文亮的训诫书.png]</ref>}}

====CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins cover up ====
On December 31, 2019 the CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declared, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.<ref>https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IzzCnz4Yr2jEIYZePiu_ow</ref><ref>[[User:RobSmith/Text of article censored by Google translate]]</ref>

The CCP employed standard [[technocrat]]ic and [[bureaucrat]]ic rhetoric to qualm public fears:
{{quotebox|Twenty-seven cases have been found , of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

Wuhan organized the consultation of clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts in Tongji Hospital, Provincial Center for Disease Control, [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]], Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and other units, and the experts returned from the disease and treatment, Epidemiological investigation, preliminary laboratory tests and other aspects of the situation analysis that the above cases are viral pneumonia. The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.}}
Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”<ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3044050/mystery-illness-hits-chinas-wuhan-city-nearly-30-hospitalised</ref>

====WHO collusion with CCP====
[[File:WHO-CCP Wuhan virus.PNG|right|300px|thumb|The WHO tweeted misinformation from the Chinese Communist Party that the world had nothing to fear from the coronavirus outbreak.]]
Li was ordered to return to work where he contracted the virus. On January 6, 2020 the center for disease control in [[Shanghai]] acquired the complete gene sequencing of the new virus. They found over 89 percent similarity between the new virus and the deadly SARS virus that caused a pandemic in 2003. The information was sent to China's national CDC in an internal document. From January 6 to January 17, CCP officials reported zero new cases. In the 11 day period the communist authorities in Wuhan City and Hubei Province held their most important annual political meetings. Over 2,000 “representatives of the people” gathered to discuss the “amazing achievements of 2019” and how 2020 will be “a tremendous and promising year.” There was little mention of the coronavirus. On January 14 the [[World Health Organization]] [[tweet]]ed,
{{Quotebox|"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan #China<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/flashback-who-china-coronavirus-contagious/</ref>}}
The same day a group of [[Hong Kong]] journalists accompanied Hong Kong experts who were invited to conduct research on the virus outbreak. The reporters were later detained by Chinese Security Police, who photographed their reporter IDs and asked them to delete all footage taken inside hospitals.

At this same time a post on the Chinese [[social media]] site Weibo, a person's dad was confirmed to have viral pneumonia. But the Xiehe Hospital in Wuhan refused to admit the father due to a shortage of hospital beds. Another netizen posted that his entire family was infected. They went to the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and saw that “there were so many patients that some had to lie on the floor of the corridor.” His father was also sent home to self-quarantine because there weren't enough hospital beds. The post was later deleted. So were all other posts in the user's account.<ref>https://www.ntd.com/a-timeline-of-events-leading-up-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china_442592.html</ref> That was the week Wuhan authorities didn't report a single confirmed or suspected case.

From January 12 to 16, an estimated 3 million passengers left Wuhan by train over the Chinese New Year holiday, to visit family and friends in other cities in China. On January 17, 2020 Wuhan's tourism bureau issued over 200,000 free tourism tickets. It was an effort to entice people to visit the city so they could experience the “Chinese style and warm sentiments of Wuhan.” On January 18, Baibuting, a populous district in Wuhan, held an annual banquet to celebrate the Lunar New Year holiday. Three days before, staff from the neighborhood committee who were concerned about the outbreak asked if they could cancel the banquet, but communist officials denied the request. Over 40,000 families attended the banquet. Local communist apparatchiks ordered labs to stop testing for the virus and destroy the existing samples.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRagZsnEc2Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

World Health Organization (WHO) boss [[Tadros Adhanom]] was a leader in [[Ethiopia]]'s Tigray People's Liberation Front, a wing of the ruling [[Marxist]] Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. Adhanom served the repressive regime as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 after a stint as Health Minister. As a candidate for the top post, ''The New York Times'' accused Tad Adhanom of covering up at least three [[epidemic]]s.<ref>http://archive.is/9B2Zy</ref>

The Communist regime did not allow the WHO into China until February 10, 2020 - more than two months after the first cases were observed.
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/wuhan-coronavirus-update-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>

Researchers have identified a "tipping point" at which the virus goes from dangerous to deadly in extremely susceptible patients. A WHO report written 18 days later based on observation in China stated that 80% of infections ("mild cases") can self-isolate, 13% require hospitalization, and 6% require intensive care. While many patients experience nothing more than a mild cold, one in seven patients develops difficulty breathing and other "severe" complications, while 6% become critically ill and require hospitalization to stabilize their condition, risking death if they can't receive the highest level of care.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/scientists-warn-about-dangerous-tipping-point-where-covid-19-goes-mild-deadly</ref> Some questions remain regarding whether the developed world has enough hospital beds available to treat cases requiring hospitalization. WHO said the coronavirus ''infection rate'' (as opposed to death rate) was thought to be the same as the flu when the virus was only known in China but has since been found to be ''two to three times that infectious''.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-raises-death-rate-and-risk-of-coronavirus-one-expert-declares-wwii/</ref>

Tad Adhamon criticized travel bans to and from China saying, "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade." The WHO was not allowed into China until February 10, 2020, more than two months after the virus was first discovered. Adhanom praised the CCP's response: "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated," and "China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response." Film clips of Adhanom are shown on Chinese television saying, "China took action massively at the epicenter at the source of the outbreak. This is heroic. The actions of China is making us safer."

Peter Humphrey, a British investigator who was jailed in China in 2013 had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and made to read out a statement written by the police in front of cameras. The anchor who presented the footage, James Chao, is now a goodwill ambassador with the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization is horribly corrupt. An audit revealed there has been a surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the
organization with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body, overwhelming an internal team of full-time investigators. An ''[[Associated Press]]'' expose in 2017 found that nearly half of the WHO two billion dollar budget went to first-class airfare and five-star hotels. The United States is the largest contributor US taxpayers fund about a quarter of the WHO budget. The WHO is working with [[Google]] to ensure that people get information from the [[UN]] health agency first when they search for information about the virus.

====Dr. Li's exoneration and death====
On January 20 [[President Xi]] finally acknowledged the crisis.<ref>https://thecritic.co.uk/the-coronavirus-cover-up/</ref> On January 23 the entire city of Wuhan, 11 million people, was put on lockdown. By the end of the month 50 million Chinese were on lockdown. On January 28, the Supreme Court of the Communist Party of China issued a statement that Dr. Li and the other "rumor makers" had been "rectified", but it was too late.

On the evening of February 6, Dr. Li died. The news quickly aroused strong attention and condemnation. However, Wuhan Central Hospital later issued a microblog saying that Li Wenliang was in critical condition and doctors were working to save his life. A number of insiders and doctors disclosed on social media that in the process, the authorities faced public indignation and ordered a series of attempts at resuscitation, but to no avail. A few hours later, the news of Li Wenliang's death again was released and detonated on WeChat and Weibo. By 6 a.m. local time, the keywords " Dr. Li Wenliang's death " and "Li Wenliang's death" ranked high on the Weibo topic list, with a total of 670 million views and 737,000 discussions.<ref>https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/07/a102771379.html</ref> Before the end of the day news of Dr. Li's death had over 1.5 billion views on Weibo.<ref>https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-chinese-public-mourns-rages-over-death-of-doctor-who-raised-early-alarm</ref> An announcement on NTD of Dr. Li's death read:
{{quotebox| [NTD Beijing, February 07, 2020] Dr. Wenliang Li , who first announced Wuhan pneumonia, died at the age of 34 on the evening of the 6th due to improper treatment of a new coronavirus infection. His death ignited a new wave of angry tsunami among the public over the CCP's concealment. After Li Wenliang's death was exposed on the [[Internet]], the authorities, under pressure from public opinion, pretended to rescue the whole person, and performed 3 hours of chest compressions and electric shocks on the dead Li Wenliang, causing his ribs to be completely broken and beyond recognition . 

On February 7th, an independent economist, "Financial Cold Eye" (@charles984681), tweeted that the hospital director was afraid that Li Wenliang's death would lead to public outrage. After 3 hours of death, he was continuously subjected to CPR, which is the shock of cardiac resuscitation. It usually takes only a few minutes. After three hours, Li Wenliang's ribs were completely broken and beyond recognition . Tweeted that
*"Dr. Li was wronged alive, and he was abused after his death! With the worst of malice, I can't imagine how despicable this devil behavior is." 

In this regard, many netizens have commented: 
*"Too evil!" 
*"Under the autocratic system, the people of Li Min are nothing but the servants of the nobles." 
*"It is most likely a premeditated murder. This person has become a serious trouble for the nobles!" 

In addition, many network screenshots showed that Li Wenliang's treatment was extremely inadequate and timely, and the hospital director was under pressure. Li Wenliang was the worst one among the eight. Li Wenliang's lung film, all white! I never thought about letting him live! This man will be regarded as a hero in the United States! He was killed directly in the CCP! His wife ’s unborn child was also hit!

It is reported that Li Wenliang stopped his heartbeat at 9:30 and was intubated 20 minutes later. Finally, he went to ECMO (artificial lung) for a symbolic rescue to calm the anger of hundreds of millions of netizens. CCP officials have been rebuked as "political rescue.".....

There was a regret on the Internet that "the hero is gone", and lamented, angered, and rebuked the CCP "this regime has committed [[crimes against humanity]]!"

*"Burning !!! Doctor Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, leaving his wife and unborn child. Wuhan government, Hubei government, don't you give an explanation? Without heart, as human beings, the TAs are just humans! See At the time of this news, do you have any trace of guilt and regret for those "killers" who indirectly kill people? "

*"This time, the doctor who first warned the Chinese and the world and informed you of the epidemic was sacrificed today. He is Li Wenliang. After the epidemic was announced, he and several other doctors were arrested by the public security ... With the incident exposed, the Chinese government must Do n’t apologize. The official said it was because of the infection, and we have reason to suspect how he died? "

Password of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

It is said that the magnitude of the rebound [public reaction] has unexpectedly surprised the CCP, and the CCP propaganda department has issued a password.

Independent economist Qin Peng tweeted that the official propaganda requirements of the CCP came out as soon as possible.

*"Regarding the death of Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan Central Hospital, we must strictly standardize the source [control the narrative] of the manuscript. We are strictly forbidden to use media reports to report without permission. We must not pop-up the window, do not comment or speculate. Search and strictly control harmful information. "

Qin Peng said that if it were not for the life-threatening plague, how many Chinese people could not imagine the evil of the Chinese Communist Party!<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/f0pmw8/rumored_dr_li_wenliangs_ribs_were_completely/</ref> }}

===Illegal bioweapon research in Wuhan===
One theory that has recently been postulated is that the coronavirus may be linked to Chinese bio-weapons research.<ref>https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2020-01-24-virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-to-chinese-bio-warfare-program/?pname=local_social&keyid=KTRH&sc=editorial</ref> The city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, has the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where "''...it was reported to have studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, the H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue''".<ref>http://www.tibetanreview.net/did-the-wuhan-virus-escape-from-chinas-bio-weapons-lab/</ref> A second facility nearby, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is also listed one of eight research facilities under the 1985 Biological Weapons Convention, of which China is a signatory.

Dr Francis Boyle is an eminent professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in the U.S. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, Dr Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, gave a detailed statement on how the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knew about it.<ref>https://greatgameindia.com/dr-francis-boyle-creator-of-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-biological-warfare-weapon/</ref>

The State Department issued a report in 2019 stating "''Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC."''<ref>https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf</ref> For its part, China has stated that it does not engage in bio-weapons engineering,<ref>https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/biological/</ref> despite discussion of bio and genetic weapons being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese military,<ref>https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-military-biotech-frontier-crispr-military-civil-fusion-and-the-new-revolution-in-military-affairs/</ref> as well as a "white paper" drafted in 2001 which stressed ''"...in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC, a necessary verification mechanism should be established"''.<ref>https://media.nti.org/pdfs/5a_1.pdf</ref>

[[India]]n researchers have found [[HIV]]-derived inserts in the coronavirus [[genome]] that compound the infectious potential and greatly bolster the argument this virus was developed as a bioterror weapon. A 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment by [[John Brennan]] and the US [[Intelligence Community]] lists China as a major potential “terror actor” and genome editing as a major terror risk.<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/01/coronavirus-the-plot-thickens/</ref>

Many have expressed skepticism of the bio-weapon theory. Dr Malcolm Davis, a defense analyst in Australia, tweeted ''"If evidence came to the fore to support such a theory, then yes - but so far, none has. Its more likely the virus jumped from an animal into humans in the Wuhan markets."''.<ref>https://m.noosanews.com.au/news/mystery-lab-30km-from-virus-ground-zero/3931000/</ref> New organizations - many left-leaning - have also stated that conspiracy theories have been created almost as soon as the news of the pandemic reached the public.<ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-china-lab-mortality-virology-wuhan-virus-not-bioweapon/</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51271037</ref>

===Early cover story===
:{{See also|CCP propaganda war}}
On January 23, 2020 the Wuhan virus exploded. While Wuhan announced the lockdown of the city, Dr. [[Shi Zhengli]] of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who had isolated the bat virus, spliced it, and made it transmissible to humans, provided the official Chinese communist cover story that the virus arose in nature. Shi published a paper in the authoritative science journal, ''Nature'' on February 3, 2020 stating that the Wuhan coronavirus was of probable bat origin.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7</ref> The paper indicated that the Wuhan virus utilized the same key as SARS to gain entry into the human body. She also announced the 2019-nCoV genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in [[Yunnan]], China, called RaTG13, signaling a natural source of the Wuhan virus.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/24/study-china-lied-wuhan-virus-did-not-originate-in-meat-market/</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' picked up the Chinese fake news narrative and indicated "The trigger point for the current coronavirus remains unclear, but [[China]] has linked the outbreak to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which despite its name also appeared to be selling live cats and dogs, wild chickens, snakes and marmots."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-outbreak-underscores-potential-health-risks-in-chinas-wild-animal-trade/2020/01/25/5f5353be-3f6f-11ea-971f-4ce4f94494b4_story.html Coronavirus outbreak underscores potential health risks in China’s wild animal trade], ''Washington Post'', 2020</ref> CNN reported concerning China: "Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals including rodents, yak, snakes and even porcupines, and experts say that makes them far more dangerous. The meat could contain deadly pathogens like the coronavirus."<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/world/coronavirus-china-bans-wildlife-trade-trnd/index.html Chinese officials crack down on wildlife markets as coronavirus outbreak nears 3,000 cases]</ref>

"Wet market" refers to the blood of animals slain on the spot. The first case can be traced back to November 17, 2019, and the first death on December 9, 2019. Some cases were rumored among stallholders from the Wuhan South China Seafood Market in early December but hushed up by Chinese authorities.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxZ1XIYmGc&feature=push-prem-sub&attr_tag=Pi2j7UuDGqgDAixI%3A6</ref> This market is said to have sold processed meats and live animals, including chickens, donkeys, sheep, pigs, foxes, badgers, bamboo rats, hedgehogs, and snakes.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1#the-huanan-wholesale-seafood-market-in-wuhan-closed-on-january-1-after-it-was-found-to-be-the-most-likely-starting-point-for-the-outbreak-of-this-coronavirus-called-2019-ncov-1 The outbreaks of both the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS likely started in Chinese wet markets. Photos show what the markets look like.]", ''Business Insider''</ref>

CNN kept the ball rolling for Chinese propagandists reporting that previous coronavirus outbreaks include SARS-CoV in 2002-2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012. Both of these strains originated in bats. SARS was transferred to humans through a masked palm civet, presumably in a Chinese wet market. MERS was transferred through a camel in Saudi Arabia. The protein codes in the Wuhan virus are most similar to those found in snakes, so it is possible that the virus jumped to humans from a snake. Snakes often hunt bats for food, but disease rarely transmits from a warm-blooded animal to a cold-blooded animal.<ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/22/health/snakes-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-conversation-partner/index.html Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak]," CNN, January 24, 2020.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Coronavirus}}
[[Category:Coronavirus]]

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-19T16:22:42Z

Timber2: /* Chloroquine */ What some on the Right think

I think this article should be titled '''Wuhan coronavirus''' instead, as the current title is the result of the fact that the WHO is owned by Red China, also see previous articles [[Wuhan coronavirus - Chinese Communist Party response]] and [[Global Wuhan coronavirus pandemic]]. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:You make a good point about the proper name of the virus. However, it can be counterproductive to overdo issues re: nomenclature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
::The Chinese had no problem with "Wuhan coronavirus" until they decided to blame America for it, which was about a week ago. (They were hoping that the virus would be seen as something local to Wuhan.) As far as the recent edits go, the opening of an article should of course correspond to its title. So long as the title of this article is "COVID-19," it can't open with "Wuhan virus." In addition, I don't think we should call it "China virus" or "CCP virus" anywhere. Yeah, there is German measles and Spanish flu. But that's not how viruses get named in the modern, globalized era. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Marxist head of the WHO, Covid-19 is the disease, not the virus. 2019-nCoV is the strain of virus. I disagree about CCP virus. It was the CCP, in collusion with the WHO, that politicized the name of the virus, and the CCP virus does not attach itself specifically to a location or nationality. It does attach itself to the political entity that created a global pandemic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 02:44, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Rep. Paul Gosar just tweeted a [https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1245378703833681920 poll] and the results were that "CCP virus" was the winner. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
==Chloroquine==
Watching a live broadcast right now that covers latest developments on chloroquine. The Dr. Zelenko stuff begins about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Gy9nPAQE0 14:23]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:46, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:The section on this drug looks to be out of date. See this recent advisory from Alberta Health Services [https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-rapid-response-report.pdf]. Some warning at least is presumably needed. However, another odd-sounding source Llama saliva may really help. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::I also found this warning from Health Canada [https://globalnews.ca/news/6869868/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-warning/]. It is to be regretted that it hasn't been the miracle that some hoped. And from France 24 [https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-studies-see-no-benefit-in-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-patients] --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

:::The FDA has now issued this warning: "FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems".<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref> --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::[[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] I thought that it would be better if you dealt with this, as a major editor of this page. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:01, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::There is also the fact that hydroxychloroquine remains essential for the well-being of those suffering from [[rheumatoid arthritis]], some symptoms of [[lupus]], childhood arthritis (or juvenile idiopathic arthritis) and other [[autoimmune diseases, for whom any shortage would be life threatening. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:22, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

==Zelenko==
Isolating Zelenko into a separate subheading may have the opposite effect of marginalizing Zelenko as a quack; rather it should be highlighted that Zelenko's treatment has been approved for expanded nationwide use. The treatment in mainstream. I suggest renaming the subhead and expanding the section to include information about about [[partisan]] anti-science Democrat governors ([[War on science]]} willing to let their people die. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

COVID-19

2020-05-19T16:08:48Z

Timber2: Error

<center>''See [[coronavirus]] for a more substantive explanation.''</center>
'''Coronavirus disease 2019''', or '''COVID-19''' or '''Covid-19''', is the name of the disease caused by a novel strain of the [[coronavirus]] (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) identified as originating in [[Wuhan, China]] in late November and early December 2019.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17], Josephine Ma, 13 Mar, 2020. www.scmp.com</ref> The reaction to the strain became [[pandemic]], reaching every continent on the planet by March 2020. Genetic mapping suggests that the Wuhan virus is related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) of 2002 and 2003 as well as to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 to the present. Covid-19 is considered highly infectious with an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2. The mortality rate is described as considerably less than 1 percent. By comparison, the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.1 percent, SARS was 9 to 10 percent, and MERS was 36 percent.<ref name="Fauci">Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., "[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted]," ''New England Journal of Medicine'', March 26, 2020.</ref>

A great deal of research is being conducted on this virus. The first vaccine candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring 2020. Therapy is currently limited to supportive care. Medication in current use include the antiviral drugs lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon-1β, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.<ref name="Fauci" />

Because of the [[virus]]' ability to replicate exponentially it is difficult to calculate the total number of people infected, as well as a definitive mortality rate. Quantifying total infections is hampered by the number of test kits available, as well as trained personnel to interpret the results of a novel, previously unknown, virus. The exponential rate of infections can overwhelm healthcare facilities and healthcare givers. With only experimental treatments available for a previously unknown virus, experts recommend persons with symptoms remain home so as to not infect others, or even if your symptoms are unrelated to Covid-19 you could become infected at hospitals where carriers likely are present.

Many carriers of the virus show no symptoms at all, and may never show symptoms. Social distancing, remaining at least 6 feet away from other people, is recommended to avoid infection and for an untested, [[asymptomatic]] (showing no symptoms) carrier to avoid spreading the virus. Each survivor of the virus must build immunity through antibodies. Therefore the size of a persons initial exposure to the virus is crucial.

Ultimately, experts have stated, some 80% of the planet will be exposed to the infection between 2019 and 2021. [[Herd immunity]] eventually will develop in the human species to survive against the infection. Until a widespread vaccine becomes available in later 2020 or in 2021, practicing such basic habits as handwashing, social distancing, wearing masks to avoid spreading or catching the infection, avoid touch the mucus membranes of your mouth, nose, and eyes, and other sanitary habits are highly recommended for persons who chose to survive this global [[pandemic]].

The virus has the ability to survive on surfaces, such as door knobs, money, tables, floors, etc. Maintaining cleanliness and avoiding contact with surfaces commonly used by the general public is also recommended.

== Atheistic, Chinese Communist Party and the COVID-19 pandemic ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic]]

The [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) mandates its members be [[atheists]] (see: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[militant atheism]] and [[State atheism]]).<ref>[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''</ref>

The CCP tried to cover up the emergence of the COVID-19 which prevented the pandemic being contained in its early stages.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>

China allowed thousands of COVID-19 infected people leave China during the early stage of the pandemic when the world was not aware of it.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-china-confronting-chinese-communist-party/ To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture], National Review</ref>

''The Atlantic'' reported concerning the role of the CCP to allow the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to spread in China and globally during its early stages:
{{Cquote|China has a history of mishandling outbreaks, including SARS in 2002 and 2003. But Chinese leaders’ negligence in December and January—for well over a month after the first outbreak in Wuhan—far surpasses those bungled responses. The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.”

This is what allowed the virus to spread across the globe. Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>}}

==Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use ==
''See also:'' [[Vladimir Zelenko]] and [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

As of March 27, 2020, the most successful doctor treating coronavirus patients is [[Vladimir Zelenko]], M.D. as none of this 699 patients have died or have required intubations whereas 1.5% of U.S. coronavirus patients die.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSHM1TK5tM Vladimir Zelenko: Important March 27, 2020 update regarding my coronavirus treatment regimen]</ref> See: [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

[[President Donald Trump]] expressed optimism that Dr. Zelenko's treatment could be expanded to meet the threat of the deadly disease during the national emergency. Several [[Democrat]] governors subsequently issued [[executive order]]s banning the treatment.<ref>https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/03/democrats-fear-cure.html</ref> On March 30, 2020, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] granted expedited approval of [[hydroxychloroquine]] nationwide for treatment of Covid-19.<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency-authorization-anti-malaria-drug-155095</ref> [[War on science|Anti-science]] [[Democrat]] governors however, showing no regard for the lives of their people, resisted the FDA approved treatment.

President Trump is now taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic (preventitive measure),<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfqJ1TkgP0 Donald Trump says he takes hydroxychloroquine drug for Covid-19]</ref> though he first checked with his personal physician that it was safe to do so (people with heart conditions should not take hydroxychloroquine).<ref>.[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref>

== Origin of Covid-19 virus ==
:{{See also|CCP pandemic coverup}}
Chinese students researchers indicated the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November 2019 from a place other than the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. A study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market.<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml</ref> The Chinese Communist Party deleted the page.

===''The Lancet'' disputes CCP wet market claims===
CCP propaganda outfits announced the virus may have originated at a government laboratory only 280 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. Disease-ridden animals, including more than 600 horseshoe bats, were kept at the facility. A Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, ''Ming Pao'', and the British daily, ''The Mirror'' explained that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, or WHCDC, could have spawned the contagion in Hubei Province. It stated that it's plausible the virus was leaked from the lab and contaminated initial patients in this epidemic. Sen. [[Tom Cotton]], citing ''The Lancet'', tweeted
{{quotebox|China claimed—for almost two months—that coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan seafood market. That is not the case. @TheLancet published a study demonstrating that of the original 40 cases, 14 of them had no contact with the seafood market, including Patient Zero.<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tom-cotton-implies-coronavirus-originated-in-wuhan-super-laboratory</ref>}}
This suggests that there was an earlier source of the virus that is unrelated to the seafood market and that has not yet been traced. If this theory is correct, the infection originated no later than November and infected the seafood market in December. The case histories and the pattern of infection were known to Chinese researchers from the beginning, so earlier reports fingering the market may have been intentionally misleading.<ref>Cohen, Jon, "[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally]," ''Science'', Jan. 26, 2020.</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'', which routinely publishes Chinese Communist [[propaganda]], blasted Sen. Cotton over his comments.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/washington-post-uses-chinese-propaganda-in-attempt-to-blast-sen-tom-cotton-over-coronavirus-comments/</ref>

On February 6, 2020 scientists from the South China University of Technology uploaded a paper on the origins of Coronavirus:
{{quotebox|The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory…… The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.<ref>http://archive.is/ATNpb</ref>}}
China's leftwing censors however deleted the content.<ref>https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831465/posts</ref>

===Dr. Li issues public warning===
[[Dr. Li Wenliang]] was an ophthalmologist in [[Wuhan, China]] who became a [[whistleblower]] and victim of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). Efforts by Dr. Li to alert the Chinese people to the danger of the [[CCP coronavirus]] in late December 2019, and his subsequent death 5 weeks later did not go unpunished. Dr. Li has been elevated to the status of saint and folk hero among the Chinese people.

On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li posted the lab test result of a coronavirus patient in a group chat to a class of about 150 students writing:
{{Quotebox|“7 cases of SARS have been confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market and they were isolated in the emergency department of our hospital. Please tell your families to take preventative measures.”}}
Some doctors confirmed that healthcare workers were starting to become infected around this time, a significant sign that the virus could spread between humans. Health officials in Wuhan were alerted. Instead of ramping up safety measures and alerting the public, on the same day they issued a notice forbidding all medical institutes or individuals from disclosing any information regarding the new disease. At midnight, Dr. Li was summoned by the CCP Security Police. They questioned him about why he was spreading rumors online.

On December 31, Wuhan's health commission posted an announcement about the outbreak on their website. They confirmed 27 cases of the infection and said there was no evidence that the disease was contagious among humans. According to a research paper written by Chinese officials, which was published later, the number of virus cases had reached at least 105 by the end of 2019. At that point, 15 people had already died. A media report also showed that one major hospital in Wuhan, Xiehe Hospital, was forced to transform an entire floor of the facility into “quarantine space for contagious disease.” [[Taiwan]] officials notified the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) that the virus was being spread from human-to-human.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/20/who-taiwan-coronavirus-warning/</ref> Communist party officials in China and military personnel began taking preventative measures, however the public was never alerted.

====8 doctors arrested for issuing public warnings====
On January 3, 2020 Dr. Li was asked to sign a confession to charges of committing [[crime]]s against the [[leftist]] regime, spreading “illegal and false” information and that he had “severely disrupted social order.” 7 other doctors also were charged. The confesion read:
{{quotebox|"On December 30, 2019, WeChat group "Clinical Wuhan University 04" issued untrue statements about 7 cases of SARS diagnosed in the South China fruit and seafood market. Now raise warnings and admonitions according to law on the illegal issue of untrue statements on the [[Internet]]. Your behavior severely disrupts social order. Your behavior has exceeded the scope permitted by [[law]], and it violates the relevant provisions of the Law of the [[People's Republic of China]] on Public Security Management Penalties, which is an [[illegal]] act! The public security organ hopes that you will actively cooperate with your work, follow the advice of the [[police]], and stop the illegal behavior. can you do it? Answer: Yes We hope that you calm down and reflect carefully, and solemnly warn you: if you are stubborn, do not think about [[repentance]], and continue to carry out illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! do you understand? Answer: understand"<ref>WikiCommons, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E6%9D%8E%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%9A%84%E8%AE%AD%E8%AF%AB%E4%B9%A6.png File:李文亮的训诫书.png]</ref>}}

====CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins cover up ====
On December 31, 2019 the CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declared, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.<ref>https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IzzCnz4Yr2jEIYZePiu_ow</ref><ref>[[User:RobSmith/Text of article censored by Google translate]]</ref>

The CCP employed standard [[technocrat]]ic and [[bureaucrat]]ic rhetoric to qualm public fears:
{{quotebox|Twenty-seven cases have been found , of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

Wuhan organized the consultation of clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts in Tongji Hospital, Provincial Center for Disease Control, [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]], Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and other units, and the experts returned from the disease and treatment, Epidemiological investigation, preliminary laboratory tests and other aspects of the situation analysis that the above cases are viral pneumonia. The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.}}
Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”<ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3044050/mystery-illness-hits-chinas-wuhan-city-nearly-30-hospitalised</ref>

====WHO collusion with CCP====
[[File:WHO-CCP Wuhan virus.PNG|right|300px|thumb|The WHO tweeted misinformation from the Chinese Communist Party that the world had nothing to fear from the coronavirus outbreak.]]
Li was ordered to return to work where he contracted the virus. On January 6, 2020 the center for disease control in [[Shanghai]] acquired the complete gene sequencing of the new virus. They found over 89 percent similarity between the new virus and the deadly SARS virus that caused a pandemic in 2003. The information was sent to China's national CDC in an internal document. From January 6 to January 17, CCP officials reported zero new cases. In the 11 day period the communist authorities in Wuhan City and Hubei Province held their most important annual political meetings. Over 2,000 “representatives of the people” gathered to discuss the “amazing achievements of 2019” and how 2020 will be “a tremendous and promising year.” There was little mention of the coronavirus. On January 14 the [[World Health Organization]] [[tweet]]ed,
{{Quotebox|"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan #China<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/flashback-who-china-coronavirus-contagious/</ref>}}
The same day a group of [[Hong Kong]] journalists accompanied Hong Kong experts who were invited to conduct research on the virus outbreak. The reporters were later detained by Chinese Security Police, who photographed their reporter IDs and asked them to delete all footage taken inside hospitals.

At this same time a post on the Chinese [[social media]] site Weibo, a person's dad was confirmed to have viral pneumonia. But the Xiehe Hospital in Wuhan refused to admit the father due to a shortage of hospital beds. Another netizen posted that his entire family was infected. They went to the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and saw that “there were so many patients that some had to lie on the floor of the corridor.” His father was also sent home to self-quarantine because there weren't enough hospital beds. The post was later deleted. So were all other posts in the user's account.<ref>https://www.ntd.com/a-timeline-of-events-leading-up-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china_442592.html</ref> That was the week Wuhan authorities didn't report a single confirmed or suspected case.

From January 12 to 16, an estimated 3 million passengers left Wuhan by train over the Chinese New Year holiday, to visit family and friends in other cities in China. On January 17, 2020 Wuhan's tourism bureau issued over 200,000 free tourism tickets. It was an effort to entice people to visit the city so they could experience the “Chinese style and warm sentiments of Wuhan.” On January 18, Baibuting, a populous district in Wuhan, held an annual banquet to celebrate the Lunar New Year holiday. Three days before, staff from the neighborhood committee who were concerned about the outbreak asked if they could cancel the banquet, but communist officials denied the request. Over 40,000 families attended the banquet. Local communist apparatchiks ordered labs to stop testing for the virus and destroy the existing samples.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRagZsnEc2Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

World Health Organization (WHO) boss [[Tadros Adhanom]] was a leader in [[Ethiopia]]'s Tigray People's Liberation Front, a wing of the ruling [[Marxist]] Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. Adhanom served the repressive regime as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 after a stint as Health Minister. As a candidate for the top post, ''The New York Times'' accused Tad Adhanom of covering up at least three [[epidemic]]s.<ref>http://archive.is/9B2Zy</ref>

The Communist regime did not allow the WHO into China until February 10, 2020 - more than two months after the first cases were observed.
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/wuhan-coronavirus-update-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>

Researchers have identified a "tipping point" at which the virus goes from dangerous to deadly in extremely susceptible patients. A WHO report written 18 days later based on observation in China stated that 80% of infections ("mild cases") can self-isolate, 13% require hospitalization, and 6% require intensive care. While many patients experience nothing more than a mild cold, one in seven patients develops difficulty breathing and other "severe" complications, while 6% become critically ill and require hospitalization to stabilize their condition, risking death if they can't receive the highest level of care.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/scientists-warn-about-dangerous-tipping-point-where-covid-19-goes-mild-deadly</ref> Some questions remain regarding whether the developed world has enough hospital beds available to treat cases requiring hospitalization. WHO said the coronavirus ''infection rate'' (as opposed to death rate) was thought to be the same as the flu when the virus was only known in China but has since been found to be ''two to three times that infectious''.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-raises-death-rate-and-risk-of-coronavirus-one-expert-declares-wwii/</ref>

Tad Adhamon criticized travel bans to and from China saying, "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade." The WHO was not allowed into China until February 10, 2020, more than two months after the virus was first discovered. Adhanom praised the CCP's response: "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated," and "China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response." Film clips of Adhanom are shown on Chinese television saying, "China took action massively at the epicenter at the source of the outbreak. This is heroic. The actions of China is making us safer."

Peter Humphrey, a British investigator who was jailed in China in 2013 had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and made to read out a statement written by the police in front of cameras. The anchor who presented the footage, James Chao, is now a goodwill ambassador with the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization is horribly corrupt. An audit revealed there has been a surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the
organization with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body, overwhelming an internal team of full-time investigators. An ''[[Associated Press]]'' expose in 2017 found that nearly half of the WHO two billion dollar budget went to first-class airfare and five-star hotels. The United States is the largest contributor US taxpayers fund about a quarter of the WHO budget. The WHO is working with [[Google]] to ensure that people get information from the [[UN]] health agency first when they search for information about the virus.

====Dr. Li's exoneration and death====
On January 20 [[President Xi]] finally acknowledged the crisis.<ref>https://thecritic.co.uk/the-coronavirus-cover-up/</ref> On January 23 the entire city of Wuhan, 11 million people, was put on lockdown. By the end of the month 50 million Chinese were on lockdown. On January 28, the Supreme Court of the Communist Party of China issued a statement that Dr. Li and the other "rumor makers" had been "rectified", but it was too late.

On the evening of February 6, Dr. Li died. The news quickly aroused strong attention and condemnation. However, Wuhan Central Hospital later issued a microblog saying that Li Wenliang was in critical condition and doctors were working to save his life. A number of insiders and doctors disclosed on social media that in the process, the authorities faced public indignation and ordered a series of attempts at resuscitation, but to no avail. A few hours later, the news of Li Wenliang's death again was released and detonated on WeChat and Weibo. By 6 a.m. local time, the keywords " Dr. Li Wenliang's death " and "Li Wenliang's death" ranked high on the Weibo topic list, with a total of 670 million views and 737,000 discussions.<ref>https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/07/a102771379.html</ref> Before the end of the day news of Dr. Li's death had over 1.5 billion views on Weibo.<ref>https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-chinese-public-mourns-rages-over-death-of-doctor-who-raised-early-alarm</ref> An announcement on NTD of Dr. Li's death read:
{{quotebox| [NTD Beijing, February 07, 2020] Dr. Wenliang Li , who first announced Wuhan pneumonia, died at the age of 34 on the evening of the 6th due to improper treatment of a new coronavirus infection. His death ignited a new wave of angry tsunami among the public over the CCP's concealment. After Li Wenliang's death was exposed on the [[Internet]], the authorities, under pressure from public opinion, pretended to rescue the whole person, and performed 3 hours of chest compressions and electric shocks on the dead Li Wenliang, causing his ribs to be completely broken and beyond recognition . 

On February 7th, an independent economist, "Financial Cold Eye" (@charles984681), tweeted that the hospital director was afraid that Li Wenliang's death would lead to public outrage. After 3 hours of death, he was continuously subjected to CPR, which is the shock of cardiac resuscitation. It usually takes only a few minutes. After three hours, Li Wenliang's ribs were completely broken and beyond recognition . Tweeted that
*"Dr. Li was wronged alive, and he was abused after his death! With the worst of malice, I can't imagine how despicable this devil behavior is." 

In this regard, many netizens have commented: 
*"Too evil!" 
*"Under the autocratic system, the people of Li Min are nothing but the servants of the nobles." 
*"It is most likely a premeditated murder. This person has become a serious trouble for the nobles!" 

In addition, many network screenshots showed that Li Wenliang's treatment was extremely inadequate and timely, and the hospital director was under pressure. Li Wenliang was the worst one among the eight. Li Wenliang's lung film, all white! I never thought about letting him live! This man will be regarded as a hero in the United States! He was killed directly in the CCP! His wife ’s unborn child was also hit!

It is reported that Li Wenliang stopped his heartbeat at 9:30 and was intubated 20 minutes later. Finally, he went to ECMO (artificial lung) for a symbolic rescue to calm the anger of hundreds of millions of netizens. CCP officials have been rebuked as "political rescue.".....

There was a regret on the Internet that "the hero is gone", and lamented, angered, and rebuked the CCP "this regime has committed [[crimes against humanity]]!"

*"Burning !!! Doctor Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, leaving his wife and unborn child. Wuhan government, Hubei government, don't you give an explanation? Without heart, as human beings, the TAs are just humans! See At the time of this news, do you have any trace of guilt and regret for those "killers" who indirectly kill people? "

*"This time, the doctor who first warned the Chinese and the world and informed you of the epidemic was sacrificed today. He is Li Wenliang. After the epidemic was announced, he and several other doctors were arrested by the public security ... With the incident exposed, the Chinese government must Do n’t apologize. The official said it was because of the infection, and we have reason to suspect how he died? "

Password of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

It is said that the magnitude of the rebound [public reaction] has unexpectedly surprised the CCP, and the CCP propaganda department has issued a password.

Independent economist Qin Peng tweeted that the official propaganda requirements of the CCP came out as soon as possible.

*"Regarding the death of Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan Central Hospital, we must strictly standardize the source [control the narrative] of the manuscript. We are strictly forbidden to use media reports to report without permission. We must not pop-up the window, do not comment or speculate. Search and strictly control harmful information. "

Qin Peng said that if it were not for the life-threatening plague, how many Chinese people could not imagine the evil of the Chinese Communist Party!<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/f0pmw8/rumored_dr_li_wenliangs_ribs_were_completely/</ref> }}

===Illegal bioweapon research in Wuhan===
One theory that has recently been postulated is that the coronavirus may be linked to Chinese bio-weapons research.<ref>https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2020-01-24-virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-to-chinese-bio-warfare-program/?pname=local_social&keyid=KTRH&sc=editorial</ref> The city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, has the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where "''...it was reported to have studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, the H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue''".<ref>http://www.tibetanreview.net/did-the-wuhan-virus-escape-from-chinas-bio-weapons-lab/</ref> A second facility nearby, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is also listed one of eight research facilities under the 1985 Biological Weapons Convention, of which China is a signatory.

Dr Francis Boyle is an eminent professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in the U.S. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, Dr Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, gave a detailed statement on how the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knew about it.<ref>https://greatgameindia.com/dr-francis-boyle-creator-of-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-biological-warfare-weapon/</ref>

The State Department issued a report in 2019 stating "''Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC."''<ref>https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf</ref> For its part, China has stated that it does not engage in bio-weapons engineering,<ref>https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/biological/</ref> despite discussion of bio and genetic weapons being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese military,<ref>https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-military-biotech-frontier-crispr-military-civil-fusion-and-the-new-revolution-in-military-affairs/</ref> as well as a "white paper" drafted in 2001 which stressed ''"...in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC, a necessary verification mechanism should be established"''.<ref>https://media.nti.org/pdfs/5a_1.pdf</ref>

[[India]]n researchers have found [[HIV]]-derived inserts in the coronavirus [[genome]] that compound the infectious potential and greatly bolster the argument this virus was developed as a bioterror weapon. A 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment by [[John Brennan]] and the US [[Intelligence Community]] lists China as a major potential “terror actor” and genome editing as a major terror risk.<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/01/coronavirus-the-plot-thickens/</ref>

Many have expressed skepticism of the bio-weapon theory. Dr Malcolm Davis, a defense analyst in Australia, tweeted ''"If evidence came to the fore to support such a theory, then yes - but so far, none has. Its more likely the virus jumped from an animal into humans in the Wuhan markets."''.<ref>https://m.noosanews.com.au/news/mystery-lab-30km-from-virus-ground-zero/3931000/</ref> New organizations - many left-leaning - have also stated that conspiracy theories have been created almost as soon as the news of the pandemic reached the public.<ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-china-lab-mortality-virology-wuhan-virus-not-bioweapon/</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51271037</ref>

===Early cover story===
:{{See also|CCP propaganda war}}
On January 23, 2020 the Wuhan virus exploded. While Wuhan announced the lockdown of the city, Dr. [[Shi Zhengli]] of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who had isolated the bat virus, spliced it, and made it transmissible to humans, provided the official Chinese communist cover story that the virus arose in nature. Shi published a paper in the authoritative science journal, ''Nature'' on February 3, 2020 stating that the Wuhan coronavirus was of probable bat origin.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7</ref> The paper indicated that the Wuhan virus utilized the same key as SARS to gain entry into the human body. She also announced the 2019-nCoV genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in [[Yunnan]], China, called RaTG13, signaling a natural source of the Wuhan virus.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/24/study-china-lied-wuhan-virus-did-not-originate-in-meat-market/</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' picked up the Chinese fake news narrative and indicated "The trigger point for the current coronavirus remains unclear, but [[China]] has linked the outbreak to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which despite its name also appeared to be selling live cats and dogs, wild chickens, snakes and marmots."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-outbreak-underscores-potential-health-risks-in-chinas-wild-animal-trade/2020/01/25/5f5353be-3f6f-11ea-971f-4ce4f94494b4_story.html Coronavirus outbreak underscores potential health risks in China’s wild animal trade], ''Washington Post'', 2020</ref> CNN reported concerning China: "Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals including rodents, yak, snakes and even porcupines, and experts say that makes them far more dangerous. The meat could contain deadly pathogens like the coronavirus."<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/world/coronavirus-china-bans-wildlife-trade-trnd/index.html Chinese officials crack down on wildlife markets as coronavirus outbreak nears 3,000 cases]</ref>

"Wet market" refers to the blood of animals slain on the spot. The first case can be traced back to November 17, 2019, and the first death on December 9, 2019. Some cases were rumored among stallholders from the Wuhan South China Seafood Market in early December but hushed up by Chinese authorities.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxZ1XIYmGc&feature=push-prem-sub&attr_tag=Pi2j7UuDGqgDAixI%3A6</ref> This market is said to have sold processed meats and live animals, including chickens, donkeys, sheep, pigs, foxes, badgers, bamboo rats, hedgehogs, and snakes.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1#the-huanan-wholesale-seafood-market-in-wuhan-closed-on-january-1-after-it-was-found-to-be-the-most-likely-starting-point-for-the-outbreak-of-this-coronavirus-called-2019-ncov-1 The outbreaks of both the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS likely started in Chinese wet markets. Photos show what the markets look like.]", ''Business Insider''</ref>

CNN kept the ball rolling for Chinese propagandists reporting that previous coronavirus outbreaks include SARS-CoV in 2002-2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012. Both of these strains originated in bats. SARS was transferred to humans through a masked palm civet, presumably in a Chinese wet market. MERS was transferred through a camel in Saudi Arabia. The protein codes in the Wuhan virus are most similar to those found in snakes, so it is possible that the virus jumped to humans from a snake. Snakes often hunt bats for food, but disease rarely transmits from a warm-blooded animal to a cold-blooded animal.<ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/22/health/snakes-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-conversation-partner/index.html Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak]," CNN, January 24, 2020.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Coronavirus}}
[[Category:Coronavirus]]

COVID-19

2020-05-19T16:07:31Z

Timber2: /* Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use */ Citation in the wrong place and another citation deleted in error

<center>''See [[coronavirus]] for a more substantive explanation.''</center>
'''Coronavirus disease 2019''', or '''COVID-19''' or '''Covid-19''', is the name of the disease caused by a novel strain of the [[coronavirus]] (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) identified as originating in [[Wuhan, China]] in late November and early December 2019.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17], Josephine Ma, 13 Mar, 2020. www.scmp.com</ref> The reaction to the strain became [[pandemic]], reaching every continent on the planet by March 2020. Genetic mapping suggests that the Wuhan virus is related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) of 2002 and 2003 as well as to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 to the present. Covid-19 is considered highly infectious with an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2. The mortality rate is described as considerably less than 1 percent. By comparison, the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.1 percent, SARS was 9 to 10 percent, and MERS was 36 percent.<ref name="Fauci">Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., "[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted]," ''New England Journal of Medicine'', March 26, 2020.</ref>

A great deal of research is being conducted on this virus. The first vaccine candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring 2020. Therapy is currently limited to supportive care. Medication in current use include the antiviral drugs lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon-1β, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.<ref name="Fauci" />

Because of the [[virus]]' ability to replicate exponentially it is difficult to calculate the total number of people infected, as well as a definitive mortality rate. Quantifying total infections is hampered by the number of test kits available, as well as trained personnel to interpret the results of a novel, previously unknown, virus. The exponential rate of infections can overwhelm healthcare facilities and healthcare givers. With only experimental treatments available for a previously unknown virus, experts recommend persons with symptoms remain home so as to not infect others, or even if your symptoms are unrelated to Covid-19 you could become infected at hospitals where carriers likely are present.

Many carriers of the virus show no symptoms at all, and may never show symptoms. Social distancing, remaining at least 6 feet away from other people, is recommended to avoid infection and for an untested, [[asymptomatic]] (showing no symptoms) carrier to avoid spreading the virus. Each survivor of the virus must build immunity through antibodies. Therefore the size of a persons initial exposure to the virus is crucial.

Ultimately, experts have stated, some 80% of the planet will be exposed to the infection between 2019 and 2021. [[Herd immunity]] eventually will develop in the human species to survive against the infection. Until a widespread vaccine becomes available in later 2020 or in 2021, practicing such basic habits as handwashing, social distancing, wearing masks to avoid spreading or catching the infection, avoid touch the mucus membranes of your mouth, nose, and eyes, and other sanitary habits are highly recommended for persons who chose to survive this global [[pandemic]].

The virus has the ability to survive on surfaces, such as door knobs, money, tables, floors, etc. Maintaining cleanliness and avoiding contact with surfaces commonly used by the general public is also recommended.

== Atheistic, Chinese Communist Party and the COVID-19 pandemic ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic]]

The [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) mandates its members be [[atheists]] (see: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[militant atheism]] and [[State atheism]]).<ref>[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''</ref>

The CCP tried to cover up the emergence of the COVID-19 which prevented the pandemic being contained in its early stages.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>

China allowed thousands of COVID-19 infected people leave China during the early stage of the pandemic when the world was not aware of it.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-china-confronting-chinese-communist-party/ To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture], National Review</ref>

''The Atlantic'' reported concerning the role of the CCP to allow the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to spread in China and globally during its early stages:
{{Cquote|China has a history of mishandling outbreaks, including SARS in 2002 and 2003. But Chinese leaders’ negligence in December and January—for well over a month after the first outbreak in Wuhan—far surpasses those bungled responses. The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.”

This is what allowed the virus to spread across the globe. Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>}}

==Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use ==
''See also:'' [[Vladimir Zelenko]] and [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

As of March 27, 2020, the most successful doctor treating coronavirus patients is [[Vladimir Zelenko]], M.D. as none of this 699 patients have died or have required intubations whereas 1.5% of U.S. coronavirus patients die.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSHM1TK5tM Vladimir Zelenko: Important March 27, 2020 update regarding my coronavirus treatment regimen]</ref> See: [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

[[President Donald Trump]] expressed optimism that Dr. Zelenko's treatment could be expanded to meet the threat of the deadly disease during the national emergency. Several [[Democrat]] governors subsequently issued [[executive order]]s banning the treatment.<ref>https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/03/democrats-fear-cure.html</ref> On March 30, 2020, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] granted expedited approval of [[hydroxychloroquine]] nationwide for treatment of Covid-19.<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency-authorization-anti-malaria-drug-155095</ref> [[War on science|Anti-science]] [[Democrat]] governors however, showing no regard for the lives of their people, resisted the FDA approved treatment.

President Trump is now taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic (preventitive measure),<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfqJ1TkgP0 Donald Trump says he takes hydroxychloroquine drug for Covid-19]</ref> though he first checked with his personal physician that it was safe to do so (people with heart conditions should not take hydroxychloroquine)<ref>.[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref>

== Origin of Covid-19 virus ==
:{{See also|CCP pandemic coverup}}
Chinese students researchers indicated the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November 2019 from a place other than the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. A study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market.<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml</ref> The Chinese Communist Party deleted the page.

===''The Lancet'' disputes CCP wet market claims===
CCP propaganda outfits announced the virus may have originated at a government laboratory only 280 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. Disease-ridden animals, including more than 600 horseshoe bats, were kept at the facility. A Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, ''Ming Pao'', and the British daily, ''The Mirror'' explained that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, or WHCDC, could have spawned the contagion in Hubei Province. It stated that it's plausible the virus was leaked from the lab and contaminated initial patients in this epidemic. Sen. [[Tom Cotton]], citing ''The Lancet'', tweeted
{{quotebox|China claimed—for almost two months—that coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan seafood market. That is not the case. @TheLancet published a study demonstrating that of the original 40 cases, 14 of them had no contact with the seafood market, including Patient Zero.<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tom-cotton-implies-coronavirus-originated-in-wuhan-super-laboratory</ref>}}
This suggests that there was an earlier source of the virus that is unrelated to the seafood market and that has not yet been traced. If this theory is correct, the infection originated no later than November and infected the seafood market in December. The case histories and the pattern of infection were known to Chinese researchers from the beginning, so earlier reports fingering the market may have been intentionally misleading.<ref>Cohen, Jon, "[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally]," ''Science'', Jan. 26, 2020.</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'', which routinely publishes Chinese Communist [[propaganda]], blasted Sen. Cotton over his comments.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/washington-post-uses-chinese-propaganda-in-attempt-to-blast-sen-tom-cotton-over-coronavirus-comments/</ref>

On February 6, 2020 scientists from the South China University of Technology uploaded a paper on the origins of Coronavirus:
{{quotebox|The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory…… The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.<ref>http://archive.is/ATNpb</ref>}}
China's leftwing censors however deleted the content.<ref>https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831465/posts</ref>

===Dr. Li issues public warning===
[[Dr. Li Wenliang]] was an ophthalmologist in [[Wuhan, China]] who became a [[whistleblower]] and victim of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). Efforts by Dr. Li to alert the Chinese people to the danger of the [[CCP coronavirus]] in late December 2019, and his subsequent death 5 weeks later did not go unpunished. Dr. Li has been elevated to the status of saint and folk hero among the Chinese people.

On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li posted the lab test result of a coronavirus patient in a group chat to a class of about 150 students writing:
{{Quotebox|“7 cases of SARS have been confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market and they were isolated in the emergency department of our hospital. Please tell your families to take preventative measures.”}}
Some doctors confirmed that healthcare workers were starting to become infected around this time, a significant sign that the virus could spread between humans. Health officials in Wuhan were alerted. Instead of ramping up safety measures and alerting the public, on the same day they issued a notice forbidding all medical institutes or individuals from disclosing any information regarding the new disease. At midnight, Dr. Li was summoned by the CCP Security Police. They questioned him about why he was spreading rumors online.

On December 31, Wuhan's health commission posted an announcement about the outbreak on their website. They confirmed 27 cases of the infection and said there was no evidence that the disease was contagious among humans. According to a research paper written by Chinese officials, which was published later, the number of virus cases had reached at least 105 by the end of 2019. At that point, 15 people had already died. A media report also showed that one major hospital in Wuhan, Xiehe Hospital, was forced to transform an entire floor of the facility into “quarantine space for contagious disease.” [[Taiwan]] officials notified the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) that the virus was being spread from human-to-human.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/20/who-taiwan-coronavirus-warning/</ref> Communist party officials in China and military personnel began taking preventative measures, however the public was never alerted.

====8 doctors arrested for issuing public warnings====
On January 3, 2020 Dr. Li was asked to sign a confession to charges of committing [[crime]]s against the [[leftist]] regime, spreading “illegal and false” information and that he had “severely disrupted social order.” 7 other doctors also were charged. The confesion read:
{{quotebox|"On December 30, 2019, WeChat group "Clinical Wuhan University 04" issued untrue statements about 7 cases of SARS diagnosed in the South China fruit and seafood market. Now raise warnings and admonitions according to law on the illegal issue of untrue statements on the [[Internet]]. Your behavior severely disrupts social order. Your behavior has exceeded the scope permitted by [[law]], and it violates the relevant provisions of the Law of the [[People's Republic of China]] on Public Security Management Penalties, which is an [[illegal]] act! The public security organ hopes that you will actively cooperate with your work, follow the advice of the [[police]], and stop the illegal behavior. can you do it? Answer: Yes We hope that you calm down and reflect carefully, and solemnly warn you: if you are stubborn, do not think about [[repentance]], and continue to carry out illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! do you understand? Answer: understand"<ref>WikiCommons, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E6%9D%8E%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%9A%84%E8%AE%AD%E8%AF%AB%E4%B9%A6.png File:李文亮的训诫书.png]</ref>}}

====CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins cover up ====
On December 31, 2019 the CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declared, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.<ref>https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IzzCnz4Yr2jEIYZePiu_ow</ref><ref>[[User:RobSmith/Text of article censored by Google translate]]</ref>

The CCP employed standard [[technocrat]]ic and [[bureaucrat]]ic rhetoric to qualm public fears:
{{quotebox|Twenty-seven cases have been found , of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

Wuhan organized the consultation of clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts in Tongji Hospital, Provincial Center for Disease Control, [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]], Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and other units, and the experts returned from the disease and treatment, Epidemiological investigation, preliminary laboratory tests and other aspects of the situation analysis that the above cases are viral pneumonia. The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.}}
Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”<ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3044050/mystery-illness-hits-chinas-wuhan-city-nearly-30-hospitalised</ref>

====WHO collusion with CCP====
[[File:WHO-CCP Wuhan virus.PNG|right|300px|thumb|The WHO tweeted misinformation from the Chinese Communist Party that the world had nothing to fear from the coronavirus outbreak.]]
Li was ordered to return to work where he contracted the virus. On January 6, 2020 the center for disease control in [[Shanghai]] acquired the complete gene sequencing of the new virus. They found over 89 percent similarity between the new virus and the deadly SARS virus that caused a pandemic in 2003. The information was sent to China's national CDC in an internal document. From January 6 to January 17, CCP officials reported zero new cases. In the 11 day period the communist authorities in Wuhan City and Hubei Province held their most important annual political meetings. Over 2,000 “representatives of the people” gathered to discuss the “amazing achievements of 2019” and how 2020 will be “a tremendous and promising year.” There was little mention of the coronavirus. On January 14 the [[World Health Organization]] [[tweet]]ed,
{{Quotebox|"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan #China<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/flashback-who-china-coronavirus-contagious/</ref>}}
The same day a group of [[Hong Kong]] journalists accompanied Hong Kong experts who were invited to conduct research on the virus outbreak. The reporters were later detained by Chinese Security Police, who photographed their reporter IDs and asked them to delete all footage taken inside hospitals.

At this same time a post on the Chinese [[social media]] site Weibo, a person's dad was confirmed to have viral pneumonia. But the Xiehe Hospital in Wuhan refused to admit the father due to a shortage of hospital beds. Another netizen posted that his entire family was infected. They went to the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and saw that “there were so many patients that some had to lie on the floor of the corridor.” His father was also sent home to self-quarantine because there weren't enough hospital beds. The post was later deleted. So were all other posts in the user's account.<ref>https://www.ntd.com/a-timeline-of-events-leading-up-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china_442592.html</ref> That was the week Wuhan authorities didn't report a single confirmed or suspected case.

From January 12 to 16, an estimated 3 million passengers left Wuhan by train over the Chinese New Year holiday, to visit family and friends in other cities in China. On January 17, 2020 Wuhan's tourism bureau issued over 200,000 free tourism tickets. It was an effort to entice people to visit the city so they could experience the “Chinese style and warm sentiments of Wuhan.” On January 18, Baibuting, a populous district in Wuhan, held an annual banquet to celebrate the Lunar New Year holiday. Three days before, staff from the neighborhood committee who were concerned about the outbreak asked if they could cancel the banquet, but communist officials denied the request. Over 40,000 families attended the banquet. Local communist apparatchiks ordered labs to stop testing for the virus and destroy the existing samples.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRagZsnEc2Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

World Health Organization (WHO) boss [[Tadros Adhanom]] was a leader in [[Ethiopia]]'s Tigray People's Liberation Front, a wing of the ruling [[Marxist]] Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. Adhanom served the repressive regime as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 after a stint as Health Minister. As a candidate for the top post, ''The New York Times'' accused Tad Adhanom of covering up at least three [[epidemic]]s.<ref>http://archive.is/9B2Zy</ref>

The Communist regime did not allow the WHO into China until February 10, 2020 - more than two months after the first cases were observed.
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/wuhan-coronavirus-update-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>

Researchers have identified a "tipping point" at which the virus goes from dangerous to deadly in extremely susceptible patients. A WHO report written 18 days later based on observation in China stated that 80% of infections ("mild cases") can self-isolate, 13% require hospitalization, and 6% require intensive care. While many patients experience nothing more than a mild cold, one in seven patients develops difficulty breathing and other "severe" complications, while 6% become critically ill and require hospitalization to stabilize their condition, risking death if they can't receive the highest level of care.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/scientists-warn-about-dangerous-tipping-point-where-covid-19-goes-mild-deadly</ref> Some questions remain regarding whether the developed world has enough hospital beds available to treat cases requiring hospitalization. WHO said the coronavirus ''infection rate'' (as opposed to death rate) was thought to be the same as the flu when the virus was only known in China but has since been found to be ''two to three times that infectious''.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-raises-death-rate-and-risk-of-coronavirus-one-expert-declares-wwii/</ref>

Tad Adhamon criticized travel bans to and from China saying, "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade." The WHO was not allowed into China until February 10, 2020, more than two months after the virus was first discovered. Adhanom praised the CCP's response: "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated," and "China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response." Film clips of Adhanom are shown on Chinese television saying, "China took action massively at the epicenter at the source of the outbreak. This is heroic. The actions of China is making us safer."

Peter Humphrey, a British investigator who was jailed in China in 2013 had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and made to read out a statement written by the police in front of cameras. The anchor who presented the footage, James Chao, is now a goodwill ambassador with the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization is horribly corrupt. An audit revealed there has been a surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the
organization with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body, overwhelming an internal team of full-time investigators. An ''[[Associated Press]]'' expose in 2017 found that nearly half of the WHO two billion dollar budget went to first-class airfare and five-star hotels. The United States is the largest contributor US taxpayers fund about a quarter of the WHO budget. The WHO is working with [[Google]] to ensure that people get information from the [[UN]] health agency first when they search for information about the virus.

====Dr. Li's exoneration and death====
On January 20 [[President Xi]] finally acknowledged the crisis.<ref>https://thecritic.co.uk/the-coronavirus-cover-up/</ref> On January 23 the entire city of Wuhan, 11 million people, was put on lockdown. By the end of the month 50 million Chinese were on lockdown. On January 28, the Supreme Court of the Communist Party of China issued a statement that Dr. Li and the other "rumor makers" had been "rectified", but it was too late.

On the evening of February 6, Dr. Li died. The news quickly aroused strong attention and condemnation. However, Wuhan Central Hospital later issued a microblog saying that Li Wenliang was in critical condition and doctors were working to save his life. A number of insiders and doctors disclosed on social media that in the process, the authorities faced public indignation and ordered a series of attempts at resuscitation, but to no avail. A few hours later, the news of Li Wenliang's death again was released and detonated on WeChat and Weibo. By 6 a.m. local time, the keywords " Dr. Li Wenliang's death " and "Li Wenliang's death" ranked high on the Weibo topic list, with a total of 670 million views and 737,000 discussions.<ref>https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/07/a102771379.html</ref> Before the end of the day news of Dr. Li's death had over 1.5 billion views on Weibo.<ref>https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-chinese-public-mourns-rages-over-death-of-doctor-who-raised-early-alarm</ref> An announcement on NTD of Dr. Li's death read:
{{quotebox| [NTD Beijing, February 07, 2020] Dr. Wenliang Li , who first announced Wuhan pneumonia, died at the age of 34 on the evening of the 6th due to improper treatment of a new coronavirus infection. His death ignited a new wave of angry tsunami among the public over the CCP's concealment. After Li Wenliang's death was exposed on the [[Internet]], the authorities, under pressure from public opinion, pretended to rescue the whole person, and performed 3 hours of chest compressions and electric shocks on the dead Li Wenliang, causing his ribs to be completely broken and beyond recognition . 

On February 7th, an independent economist, "Financial Cold Eye" (@charles984681), tweeted that the hospital director was afraid that Li Wenliang's death would lead to public outrage. After 3 hours of death, he was continuously subjected to CPR, which is the shock of cardiac resuscitation. It usually takes only a few minutes. After three hours, Li Wenliang's ribs were completely broken and beyond recognition . Tweeted that
*"Dr. Li was wronged alive, and he was abused after his death! With the worst of malice, I can't imagine how despicable this devil behavior is." 

In this regard, many netizens have commented: 
*"Too evil!" 
*"Under the autocratic system, the people of Li Min are nothing but the servants of the nobles." 
*"It is most likely a premeditated murder. This person has become a serious trouble for the nobles!" 

In addition, many network screenshots showed that Li Wenliang's treatment was extremely inadequate and timely, and the hospital director was under pressure. Li Wenliang was the worst one among the eight. Li Wenliang's lung film, all white! I never thought about letting him live! This man will be regarded as a hero in the United States! He was killed directly in the CCP! His wife ’s unborn child was also hit!

It is reported that Li Wenliang stopped his heartbeat at 9:30 and was intubated 20 minutes later. Finally, he went to ECMO (artificial lung) for a symbolic rescue to calm the anger of hundreds of millions of netizens. CCP officials have been rebuked as "political rescue.".....

There was a regret on the Internet that "the hero is gone", and lamented, angered, and rebuked the CCP "this regime has committed [[crimes against humanity]]!"

*"Burning !!! Doctor Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, leaving his wife and unborn child. Wuhan government, Hubei government, don't you give an explanation? Without heart, as human beings, the TAs are just humans! See At the time of this news, do you have any trace of guilt and regret for those "killers" who indirectly kill people? "

*"This time, the doctor who first warned the Chinese and the world and informed you of the epidemic was sacrificed today. He is Li Wenliang. After the epidemic was announced, he and several other doctors were arrested by the public security ... With the incident exposed, the Chinese government must Do n’t apologize. The official said it was because of the infection, and we have reason to suspect how he died? "

Password of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

It is said that the magnitude of the rebound [public reaction] has unexpectedly surprised the CCP, and the CCP propaganda department has issued a password.

Independent economist Qin Peng tweeted that the official propaganda requirements of the CCP came out as soon as possible.

*"Regarding the death of Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan Central Hospital, we must strictly standardize the source [control the narrative] of the manuscript. We are strictly forbidden to use media reports to report without permission. We must not pop-up the window, do not comment or speculate. Search and strictly control harmful information. "

Qin Peng said that if it were not for the life-threatening plague, how many Chinese people could not imagine the evil of the Chinese Communist Party!<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/f0pmw8/rumored_dr_li_wenliangs_ribs_were_completely/</ref> }}

===Illegal bioweapon research in Wuhan===
One theory that has recently been postulated is that the coronavirus may be linked to Chinese bio-weapons research.<ref>https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2020-01-24-virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-to-chinese-bio-warfare-program/?pname=local_social&keyid=KTRH&sc=editorial</ref> The city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, has the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where "''...it was reported to have studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, the H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue''".<ref>http://www.tibetanreview.net/did-the-wuhan-virus-escape-from-chinas-bio-weapons-lab/</ref> A second facility nearby, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is also listed one of eight research facilities under the 1985 Biological Weapons Convention, of which China is a signatory.

Dr Francis Boyle is an eminent professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in the U.S. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, Dr Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, gave a detailed statement on how the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knew about it.<ref>https://greatgameindia.com/dr-francis-boyle-creator-of-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-biological-warfare-weapon/</ref>

The State Department issued a report in 2019 stating "''Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC."''<ref>https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf</ref> For its part, China has stated that it does not engage in bio-weapons engineering,<ref>https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/biological/</ref> despite discussion of bio and genetic weapons being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese military,<ref>https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-military-biotech-frontier-crispr-military-civil-fusion-and-the-new-revolution-in-military-affairs/</ref> as well as a "white paper" drafted in 2001 which stressed ''"...in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC, a necessary verification mechanism should be established"''.<ref>https://media.nti.org/pdfs/5a_1.pdf</ref>

[[India]]n researchers have found [[HIV]]-derived inserts in the coronavirus [[genome]] that compound the infectious potential and greatly bolster the argument this virus was developed as a bioterror weapon. A 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment by [[John Brennan]] and the US [[Intelligence Community]] lists China as a major potential “terror actor” and genome editing as a major terror risk.<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/01/coronavirus-the-plot-thickens/</ref>

Many have expressed skepticism of the bio-weapon theory. Dr Malcolm Davis, a defense analyst in Australia, tweeted ''"If evidence came to the fore to support such a theory, then yes - but so far, none has. Its more likely the virus jumped from an animal into humans in the Wuhan markets."''.<ref>https://m.noosanews.com.au/news/mystery-lab-30km-from-virus-ground-zero/3931000/</ref> New organizations - many left-leaning - have also stated that conspiracy theories have been created almost as soon as the news of the pandemic reached the public.<ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-china-lab-mortality-virology-wuhan-virus-not-bioweapon/</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51271037</ref>

===Early cover story===
:{{See also|CCP propaganda war}}
On January 23, 2020 the Wuhan virus exploded. While Wuhan announced the lockdown of the city, Dr. [[Shi Zhengli]] of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who had isolated the bat virus, spliced it, and made it transmissible to humans, provided the official Chinese communist cover story that the virus arose in nature. Shi published a paper in the authoritative science journal, ''Nature'' on February 3, 2020 stating that the Wuhan coronavirus was of probable bat origin.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7</ref> The paper indicated that the Wuhan virus utilized the same key as SARS to gain entry into the human body. She also announced the 2019-nCoV genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in [[Yunnan]], China, called RaTG13, signaling a natural source of the Wuhan virus.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/24/study-china-lied-wuhan-virus-did-not-originate-in-meat-market/</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' picked up the Chinese fake news narrative and indicated "The trigger point for the current coronavirus remains unclear, but [[China]] has linked the outbreak to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which despite its name also appeared to be selling live cats and dogs, wild chickens, snakes and marmots."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-outbreak-underscores-potential-health-risks-in-chinas-wild-animal-trade/2020/01/25/5f5353be-3f6f-11ea-971f-4ce4f94494b4_story.html Coronavirus outbreak underscores potential health risks in China’s wild animal trade], ''Washington Post'', 2020</ref> CNN reported concerning China: "Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals including rodents, yak, snakes and even porcupines, and experts say that makes them far more dangerous. The meat could contain deadly pathogens like the coronavirus."<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/world/coronavirus-china-bans-wildlife-trade-trnd/index.html Chinese officials crack down on wildlife markets as coronavirus outbreak nears 3,000 cases]</ref>

"Wet market" refers to the blood of animals slain on the spot. The first case can be traced back to November 17, 2019, and the first death on December 9, 2019. Some cases were rumored among stallholders from the Wuhan South China Seafood Market in early December but hushed up by Chinese authorities.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxZ1XIYmGc&feature=push-prem-sub&attr_tag=Pi2j7UuDGqgDAixI%3A6</ref> This market is said to have sold processed meats and live animals, including chickens, donkeys, sheep, pigs, foxes, badgers, bamboo rats, hedgehogs, and snakes.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1#the-huanan-wholesale-seafood-market-in-wuhan-closed-on-january-1-after-it-was-found-to-be-the-most-likely-starting-point-for-the-outbreak-of-this-coronavirus-called-2019-ncov-1 The outbreaks of both the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS likely started in Chinese wet markets. Photos show what the markets look like.]", ''Business Insider''</ref>

CNN kept the ball rolling for Chinese propagandists reporting that previous coronavirus outbreaks include SARS-CoV in 2002-2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012. Both of these strains originated in bats. SARS was transferred to humans through a masked palm civet, presumably in a Chinese wet market. MERS was transferred through a camel in Saudi Arabia. The protein codes in the Wuhan virus are most similar to those found in snakes, so it is possible that the virus jumped to humans from a snake. Snakes often hunt bats for food, but disease rarely transmits from a warm-blooded animal to a cold-blooded animal.<ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/22/health/snakes-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-conversation-partner/index.html Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak]," CNN, January 24, 2020.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Coronavirus}}
[[Category:Coronavirus]]

COVID-19

2020-05-19T15:10:44Z

Timber2: Error fixed

<center>''See [[coronavirus]] for a more substantive explanation.''</center>
'''Coronavirus disease 2019''', or '''COVID-19''' or '''Covid-19''', is the name of the disease caused by a novel strain of the [[coronavirus]] (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) identified as originating in [[Wuhan, China]] in late November and early December 2019.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17], Josephine Ma, 13 Mar, 2020. www.scmp.com</ref> The reaction to the strain became [[pandemic]], reaching every continent on the planet by March 2020. Genetic mapping suggests that the Wuhan virus is related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) of 2002 and 2003 as well as to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 to the present. Covid-19 is considered highly infectious with an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2. The mortality rate is described as considerably less than 1 percent. By comparison, the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.1 percent, SARS was 9 to 10 percent, and MERS was 36 percent.<ref name="Fauci">Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., "[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted]," ''New England Journal of Medicine'', March 26, 2020.</ref>

A great deal of research is being conducted on this virus. The first vaccine candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring 2020. Therapy is currently limited to supportive care. Medication in current use include the antiviral drugs lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon-1β, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.<ref name="Fauci" />

Because of the [[virus]]' ability to replicate exponentially it is difficult to calculate the total number of people infected, as well as a definitive mortality rate. Quantifying total infections is hampered by the number of test kits available, as well as trained personnel to interpret the results of a novel, previously unknown, virus. The exponential rate of infections can overwhelm healthcare facilities and healthcare givers. With only experimental treatments available for a previously unknown virus, experts recommend persons with symptoms remain home so as to not infect others, or even if your symptoms are unrelated to Covid-19 you could become infected at hospitals where carriers likely are present.

Many carriers of the virus show no symptoms at all, and may never show symptoms. Social distancing, remaining at least 6 feet away from other people, is recommended to avoid infection and for an untested, [[asymptomatic]] (showing no symptoms) carrier to avoid spreading the virus. Each survivor of the virus must build immunity through antibodies. Therefore the size of a persons initial exposure to the virus is crucial.

Ultimately, experts have stated, some 80% of the planet will be exposed to the infection between 2019 and 2021. [[Herd immunity]] eventually will develop in the human species to survive against the infection. Until a widespread vaccine becomes available in later 2020 or in 2021, practicing such basic habits as handwashing, social distancing, wearing masks to avoid spreading or catching the infection, avoid touch the mucus membranes of your mouth, nose, and eyes, and other sanitary habits are highly recommended for persons who chose to survive this global [[pandemic]].

The virus has the ability to survive on surfaces, such as door knobs, money, tables, floors, etc. Maintaining cleanliness and avoiding contact with surfaces commonly used by the general public is also recommended.

== Atheistic, Chinese Communist Party and the COVID-19 pandemic ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic]]

The [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) mandates its members be [[atheists]] (see: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[militant atheism]] and [[State atheism]]).<ref>[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''</ref>

The CCP tried to cover up the emergence of the COVID-19 which prevented the pandemic being contained in its early stages.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>

China allowed thousands of COVID-19 infected people leave China during the early stage of the pandemic when the world was not aware of it.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-china-confronting-chinese-communist-party/ To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture], National Review</ref>

''The Atlantic'' reported concerning the role of the CCP to allow the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to spread in China and globally during its early stages:
{{Cquote|China has a history of mishandling outbreaks, including SARS in 2002 and 2003. But Chinese leaders’ negligence in December and January—for well over a month after the first outbreak in Wuhan—far surpasses those bungled responses. The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.”

This is what allowed the virus to spread across the globe. Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>}}

==Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use ==
''See also:'' [[Vladimir Zelenko]] and [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

As of March 27, 2020, the most successful doctor treating coronavirus patients is [[Vladimir Zelenko]], M.D. as none of this 699 patients have died or have required intubations whereas 1.5% of U.S. coronavirus patients die.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSHM1TK5tM Vladimir Zelenko: Important March 27, 2020 update regarding my coronavirus treatment regimen]</ref> See: [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

[[President Donald Trump]] expressed optimism that Dr. Zelenko's treatment could be expanded to meet the threat of the deadly disease during the national emergency. Several [[Democrat]] governors subsequently issued [[executive order]]s banning the treatment.<ref>https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/03/democrats-fear-cure.html</ref> On March 30, 2020, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] granted expedited approval of [[hydroxychloroquine]] nationwide for treatment of Covid-19.<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency-authorization-anti-malaria-drug-155095</ref> [[War on science|Anti-science]] [[Democrat]] governors however, showing no regard for the lives of their people, resisted the FDA approved treatment.

President Trump is now taking hydroxychloroquine, though he first checked with his personal physician that it was safe to do so, in accordance with the FDA's warning on April 30 of potentially dangerous side effects.<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref>

== Origin of Covid-19 virus ==
:{{See also|CCP pandemic coverup}}
Chinese students researchers indicated the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November 2019 from a place other than the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. A study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market.<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml</ref> The Chinese Communist Party deleted the page.

===''The Lancet'' disputes CCP wet market claims===
CCP propaganda outfits announced the virus may have originated at a government laboratory only 280 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. Disease-ridden animals, including more than 600 horseshoe bats, were kept at the facility. A Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, ''Ming Pao'', and the British daily, ''The Mirror'' explained that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, or WHCDC, could have spawned the contagion in Hubei Province. It stated that it's plausible the virus was leaked from the lab and contaminated initial patients in this epidemic. Sen. [[Tom Cotton]], citing ''The Lancet'', tweeted
{{quotebox|China claimed—for almost two months—that coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan seafood market. That is not the case. @TheLancet published a study demonstrating that of the original 40 cases, 14 of them had no contact with the seafood market, including Patient Zero.<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tom-cotton-implies-coronavirus-originated-in-wuhan-super-laboratory</ref>}}
This suggests that there was an earlier source of the virus that is unrelated to the seafood market and that has not yet been traced. If this theory is correct, the infection originated no later than November and infected the seafood market in December. The case histories and the pattern of infection were known to Chinese researchers from the beginning, so earlier reports fingering the market may have been intentionally misleading.<ref>Cohen, Jon, "[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally]," ''Science'', Jan. 26, 2020.</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'', which routinely publishes Chinese Communist [[propaganda]], blasted Sen. Cotton over his comments.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/washington-post-uses-chinese-propaganda-in-attempt-to-blast-sen-tom-cotton-over-coronavirus-comments/</ref>

On February 6, 2020 scientists from the South China University of Technology uploaded a paper on the origins of Coronavirus:
{{quotebox|The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory…… The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.<ref>http://archive.is/ATNpb</ref>}}
China's leftwing censors however deleted the content.<ref>https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831465/posts</ref>

===Dr. Li issues public warning===
[[Dr. Li Wenliang]] was an ophthalmologist in [[Wuhan, China]] who became a [[whistleblower]] and victim of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). Efforts by Dr. Li to alert the Chinese people to the danger of the [[CCP coronavirus]] in late December 2019, and his subsequent death 5 weeks later did not go unpunished. Dr. Li has been elevated to the status of saint and folk hero among the Chinese people.

On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li posted the lab test result of a coronavirus patient in a group chat to a class of about 150 students writing:
{{Quotebox|“7 cases of SARS have been confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market and they were isolated in the emergency department of our hospital. Please tell your families to take preventative measures.”}}
Some doctors confirmed that healthcare workers were starting to become infected around this time, a significant sign that the virus could spread between humans. Health officials in Wuhan were alerted. Instead of ramping up safety measures and alerting the public, on the same day they issued a notice forbidding all medical institutes or individuals from disclosing any information regarding the new disease. At midnight, Dr. Li was summoned by the CCP Security Police. They questioned him about why he was spreading rumors online.

On December 31, Wuhan's health commission posted an announcement about the outbreak on their website. They confirmed 27 cases of the infection and said there was no evidence that the disease was contagious among humans. According to a research paper written by Chinese officials, which was published later, the number of virus cases had reached at least 105 by the end of 2019. At that point, 15 people had already died. A media report also showed that one major hospital in Wuhan, Xiehe Hospital, was forced to transform an entire floor of the facility into “quarantine space for contagious disease.” [[Taiwan]] officials notified the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) that the virus was being spread from human-to-human.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/20/who-taiwan-coronavirus-warning/</ref> Communist party officials in China and military personnel began taking preventative measures, however the public was never alerted.

====8 doctors arrested for issuing public warnings====
On January 3, 2020 Dr. Li was asked to sign a confession to charges of committing [[crime]]s against the [[leftist]] regime, spreading “illegal and false” information and that he had “severely disrupted social order.” 7 other doctors also were charged. The confesion read:
{{quotebox|"On December 30, 2019, WeChat group "Clinical Wuhan University 04" issued untrue statements about 7 cases of SARS diagnosed in the South China fruit and seafood market. Now raise warnings and admonitions according to law on the illegal issue of untrue statements on the [[Internet]]. Your behavior severely disrupts social order. Your behavior has exceeded the scope permitted by [[law]], and it violates the relevant provisions of the Law of the [[People's Republic of China]] on Public Security Management Penalties, which is an [[illegal]] act! The public security organ hopes that you will actively cooperate with your work, follow the advice of the [[police]], and stop the illegal behavior. can you do it? Answer: Yes We hope that you calm down and reflect carefully, and solemnly warn you: if you are stubborn, do not think about [[repentance]], and continue to carry out illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! do you understand? Answer: understand"<ref>WikiCommons, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E6%9D%8E%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%9A%84%E8%AE%AD%E8%AF%AB%E4%B9%A6.png File:李文亮的训诫书.png]</ref>}}

====CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins cover up ====
On December 31, 2019 the CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declared, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.<ref>https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IzzCnz4Yr2jEIYZePiu_ow</ref><ref>[[User:RobSmith/Text of article censored by Google translate]]</ref>

The CCP employed standard [[technocrat]]ic and [[bureaucrat]]ic rhetoric to qualm public fears:
{{quotebox|Twenty-seven cases have been found , of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

Wuhan organized the consultation of clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts in Tongji Hospital, Provincial Center for Disease Control, [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]], Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and other units, and the experts returned from the disease and treatment, Epidemiological investigation, preliminary laboratory tests and other aspects of the situation analysis that the above cases are viral pneumonia. The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.}}
Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”<ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3044050/mystery-illness-hits-chinas-wuhan-city-nearly-30-hospitalised</ref>

====WHO collusion with CCP====
[[File:WHO-CCP Wuhan virus.PNG|right|300px|thumb|The WHO tweeted misinformation from the Chinese Communist Party that the world had nothing to fear from the coronavirus outbreak.]]
Li was ordered to return to work where he contracted the virus. On January 6, 2020 the center for disease control in [[Shanghai]] acquired the complete gene sequencing of the new virus. They found over 89 percent similarity between the new virus and the deadly SARS virus that caused a pandemic in 2003. The information was sent to China's national CDC in an internal document. From January 6 to January 17, CCP officials reported zero new cases. In the 11 day period the communist authorities in Wuhan City and Hubei Province held their most important annual political meetings. Over 2,000 “representatives of the people” gathered to discuss the “amazing achievements of 2019” and how 2020 will be “a tremendous and promising year.” There was little mention of the coronavirus. On January 14 the [[World Health Organization]] [[tweet]]ed,
{{Quotebox|"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan #China<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/flashback-who-china-coronavirus-contagious/</ref>}}
The same day a group of [[Hong Kong]] journalists accompanied Hong Kong experts who were invited to conduct research on the virus outbreak. The reporters were later detained by Chinese Security Police, who photographed their reporter IDs and asked them to delete all footage taken inside hospitals.

At this same time a post on the Chinese [[social media]] site Weibo, a person's dad was confirmed to have viral pneumonia. But the Xiehe Hospital in Wuhan refused to admit the father due to a shortage of hospital beds. Another netizen posted that his entire family was infected. They went to the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and saw that “there were so many patients that some had to lie on the floor of the corridor.” His father was also sent home to self-quarantine because there weren't enough hospital beds. The post was later deleted. So were all other posts in the user's account.<ref>https://www.ntd.com/a-timeline-of-events-leading-up-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china_442592.html</ref> That was the week Wuhan authorities didn't report a single confirmed or suspected case.

From January 12 to 16, an estimated 3 million passengers left Wuhan by train over the Chinese New Year holiday, to visit family and friends in other cities in China. On January 17, 2020 Wuhan's tourism bureau issued over 200,000 free tourism tickets. It was an effort to entice people to visit the city so they could experience the “Chinese style and warm sentiments of Wuhan.” On January 18, Baibuting, a populous district in Wuhan, held an annual banquet to celebrate the Lunar New Year holiday. Three days before, staff from the neighborhood committee who were concerned about the outbreak asked if they could cancel the banquet, but communist officials denied the request. Over 40,000 families attended the banquet. Local communist apparatchiks ordered labs to stop testing for the virus and destroy the existing samples.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRagZsnEc2Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

World Health Organization (WHO) boss [[Tadros Adhanom]] was a leader in [[Ethiopia]]'s Tigray People's Liberation Front, a wing of the ruling [[Marxist]] Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. Adhanom served the repressive regime as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 after a stint as Health Minister. As a candidate for the top post, ''The New York Times'' accused Tad Adhanom of covering up at least three [[epidemic]]s.<ref>http://archive.is/9B2Zy</ref>

The Communist regime did not allow the WHO into China until February 10, 2020 - more than two months after the first cases were observed.
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/wuhan-coronavirus-update-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>

Researchers have identified a "tipping point" at which the virus goes from dangerous to deadly in extremely susceptible patients. A WHO report written 18 days later based on observation in China stated that 80% of infections ("mild cases") can self-isolate, 13% require hospitalization, and 6% require intensive care. While many patients experience nothing more than a mild cold, one in seven patients develops difficulty breathing and other "severe" complications, while 6% become critically ill and require hospitalization to stabilize their condition, risking death if they can't receive the highest level of care.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/scientists-warn-about-dangerous-tipping-point-where-covid-19-goes-mild-deadly</ref> Some questions remain regarding whether the developed world has enough hospital beds available to treat cases requiring hospitalization. WHO said the coronavirus ''infection rate'' (as opposed to death rate) was thought to be the same as the flu when the virus was only known in China but has since been found to be ''two to three times that infectious''.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-raises-death-rate-and-risk-of-coronavirus-one-expert-declares-wwii/</ref>

Tad Adhamon criticized travel bans to and from China saying, "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade." The WHO was not allowed into China until February 10, 2020, more than two months after the virus was first discovered. Adhanom praised the CCP's response: "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated," and "China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response." Film clips of Adhanom are shown on Chinese television saying, "China took action massively at the epicenter at the source of the outbreak. This is heroic. The actions of China is making us safer."

Peter Humphrey, a British investigator who was jailed in China in 2013 had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and made to read out a statement written by the police in front of cameras. The anchor who presented the footage, James Chao, is now a goodwill ambassador with the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization is horribly corrupt. An audit revealed there has been a surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the
organization with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body, overwhelming an internal team of full-time investigators. An ''[[Associated Press]]'' expose in 2017 found that nearly half of the WHO two billion dollar budget went to first-class airfare and five-star hotels. The United States is the largest contributor US taxpayers fund about a quarter of the WHO budget. The WHO is working with [[Google]] to ensure that people get information from the [[UN]] health agency first when they search for information about the virus.

====Dr. Li's exoneration and death====
On January 20 [[President Xi]] finally acknowledged the crisis.<ref>https://thecritic.co.uk/the-coronavirus-cover-up/</ref> On January 23 the entire city of Wuhan, 11 million people, was put on lockdown. By the end of the month 50 million Chinese were on lockdown. On January 28, the Supreme Court of the Communist Party of China issued a statement that Dr. Li and the other "rumor makers" had been "rectified", but it was too late.

On the evening of February 6, Dr. Li died. The news quickly aroused strong attention and condemnation. However, Wuhan Central Hospital later issued a microblog saying that Li Wenliang was in critical condition and doctors were working to save his life. A number of insiders and doctors disclosed on social media that in the process, the authorities faced public indignation and ordered a series of attempts at resuscitation, but to no avail. A few hours later, the news of Li Wenliang's death again was released and detonated on WeChat and Weibo. By 6 a.m. local time, the keywords " Dr. Li Wenliang's death " and "Li Wenliang's death" ranked high on the Weibo topic list, with a total of 670 million views and 737,000 discussions.<ref>https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/07/a102771379.html</ref> Before the end of the day news of Dr. Li's death had over 1.5 billion views on Weibo.<ref>https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-chinese-public-mourns-rages-over-death-of-doctor-who-raised-early-alarm</ref> An announcement on NTD of Dr. Li's death read:
{{quotebox| [NTD Beijing, February 07, 2020] Dr. Wenliang Li , who first announced Wuhan pneumonia, died at the age of 34 on the evening of the 6th due to improper treatment of a new coronavirus infection. His death ignited a new wave of angry tsunami among the public over the CCP's concealment. After Li Wenliang's death was exposed on the [[Internet]], the authorities, under pressure from public opinion, pretended to rescue the whole person, and performed 3 hours of chest compressions and electric shocks on the dead Li Wenliang, causing his ribs to be completely broken and beyond recognition . 

On February 7th, an independent economist, "Financial Cold Eye" (@charles984681), tweeted that the hospital director was afraid that Li Wenliang's death would lead to public outrage. After 3 hours of death, he was continuously subjected to CPR, which is the shock of cardiac resuscitation. It usually takes only a few minutes. After three hours, Li Wenliang's ribs were completely broken and beyond recognition . Tweeted that
*"Dr. Li was wronged alive, and he was abused after his death! With the worst of malice, I can't imagine how despicable this devil behavior is." 

In this regard, many netizens have commented: 
*"Too evil!" 
*"Under the autocratic system, the people of Li Min are nothing but the servants of the nobles." 
*"It is most likely a premeditated murder. This person has become a serious trouble for the nobles!" 

In addition, many network screenshots showed that Li Wenliang's treatment was extremely inadequate and timely, and the hospital director was under pressure. Li Wenliang was the worst one among the eight. Li Wenliang's lung film, all white! I never thought about letting him live! This man will be regarded as a hero in the United States! He was killed directly in the CCP! His wife ’s unborn child was also hit!

It is reported that Li Wenliang stopped his heartbeat at 9:30 and was intubated 20 minutes later. Finally, he went to ECMO (artificial lung) for a symbolic rescue to calm the anger of hundreds of millions of netizens. CCP officials have been rebuked as "political rescue.".....

There was a regret on the Internet that "the hero is gone", and lamented, angered, and rebuked the CCP "this regime has committed [[crimes against humanity]]!"

*"Burning !!! Doctor Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, leaving his wife and unborn child. Wuhan government, Hubei government, don't you give an explanation? Without heart, as human beings, the TAs are just humans! See At the time of this news, do you have any trace of guilt and regret for those "killers" who indirectly kill people? "

*"This time, the doctor who first warned the Chinese and the world and informed you of the epidemic was sacrificed today. He is Li Wenliang. After the epidemic was announced, he and several other doctors were arrested by the public security ... With the incident exposed, the Chinese government must Do n’t apologize. The official said it was because of the infection, and we have reason to suspect how he died? "

Password of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

It is said that the magnitude of the rebound [public reaction] has unexpectedly surprised the CCP, and the CCP propaganda department has issued a password.

Independent economist Qin Peng tweeted that the official propaganda requirements of the CCP came out as soon as possible.

*"Regarding the death of Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan Central Hospital, we must strictly standardize the source [control the narrative] of the manuscript. We are strictly forbidden to use media reports to report without permission. We must not pop-up the window, do not comment or speculate. Search and strictly control harmful information. "

Qin Peng said that if it were not for the life-threatening plague, how many Chinese people could not imagine the evil of the Chinese Communist Party!<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/f0pmw8/rumored_dr_li_wenliangs_ribs_were_completely/</ref> }}

===Illegal bioweapon research in Wuhan===
One theory that has recently been postulated is that the coronavirus may be linked to Chinese bio-weapons research.<ref>https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2020-01-24-virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-to-chinese-bio-warfare-program/?pname=local_social&keyid=KTRH&sc=editorial</ref> The city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, has the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where "''...it was reported to have studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, the H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue''".<ref>http://www.tibetanreview.net/did-the-wuhan-virus-escape-from-chinas-bio-weapons-lab/</ref> A second facility nearby, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is also listed one of eight research facilities under the 1985 Biological Weapons Convention, of which China is a signatory.

Dr Francis Boyle is an eminent professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in the U.S. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, Dr Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, gave a detailed statement on how the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knew about it.<ref>https://greatgameindia.com/dr-francis-boyle-creator-of-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-biological-warfare-weapon/</ref>

The State Department issued a report in 2019 stating "''Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC."''<ref>https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf</ref> For its part, China has stated that it does not engage in bio-weapons engineering,<ref>https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/biological/</ref> despite discussion of bio and genetic weapons being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese military,<ref>https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-military-biotech-frontier-crispr-military-civil-fusion-and-the-new-revolution-in-military-affairs/</ref> as well as a "white paper" drafted in 2001 which stressed ''"...in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC, a necessary verification mechanism should be established"''.<ref>https://media.nti.org/pdfs/5a_1.pdf</ref>

[[India]]n researchers have found [[HIV]]-derived inserts in the coronavirus [[genome]] that compound the infectious potential and greatly bolster the argument this virus was developed as a bioterror weapon. A 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment by [[John Brennan]] and the US [[Intelligence Community]] lists China as a major potential “terror actor” and genome editing as a major terror risk.<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/01/coronavirus-the-plot-thickens/</ref>

Many have expressed skepticism of the bio-weapon theory. Dr Malcolm Davis, a defense analyst in Australia, tweeted ''"If evidence came to the fore to support such a theory, then yes - but so far, none has. Its more likely the virus jumped from an animal into humans in the Wuhan markets."''.<ref>https://m.noosanews.com.au/news/mystery-lab-30km-from-virus-ground-zero/3931000/</ref> New organizations - many left-leaning - have also stated that conspiracy theories have been created almost as soon as the news of the pandemic reached the public.<ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-china-lab-mortality-virology-wuhan-virus-not-bioweapon/</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51271037</ref>

===Early cover story===
:{{See also|CCP propaganda war}}
On January 23, 2020 the Wuhan virus exploded. While Wuhan announced the lockdown of the city, Dr. [[Shi Zhengli]] of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who had isolated the bat virus, spliced it, and made it transmissible to humans, provided the official Chinese communist cover story that the virus arose in nature. Shi published a paper in the authoritative science journal, ''Nature'' on February 3, 2020 stating that the Wuhan coronavirus was of probable bat origin.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7</ref> The paper indicated that the Wuhan virus utilized the same key as SARS to gain entry into the human body. She also announced the 2019-nCoV genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in [[Yunnan]], China, called RaTG13, signaling a natural source of the Wuhan virus.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/24/study-china-lied-wuhan-virus-did-not-originate-in-meat-market/</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' picked up the Chinese fake news narrative and indicated "The trigger point for the current coronavirus remains unclear, but [[China]] has linked the outbreak to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which despite its name also appeared to be selling live cats and dogs, wild chickens, snakes and marmots."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-outbreak-underscores-potential-health-risks-in-chinas-wild-animal-trade/2020/01/25/5f5353be-3f6f-11ea-971f-4ce4f94494b4_story.html Coronavirus outbreak underscores potential health risks in China’s wild animal trade], ''Washington Post'', 2020</ref> CNN reported concerning China: "Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals including rodents, yak, snakes and even porcupines, and experts say that makes them far more dangerous. The meat could contain deadly pathogens like the coronavirus."<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/world/coronavirus-china-bans-wildlife-trade-trnd/index.html Chinese officials crack down on wildlife markets as coronavirus outbreak nears 3,000 cases]</ref>

"Wet market" refers to the blood of animals slain on the spot. The first case can be traced back to November 17, 2019, and the first death on December 9, 2019. Some cases were rumored among stallholders from the Wuhan South China Seafood Market in early December but hushed up by Chinese authorities.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxZ1XIYmGc&feature=push-prem-sub&attr_tag=Pi2j7UuDGqgDAixI%3A6</ref> This market is said to have sold processed meats and live animals, including chickens, donkeys, sheep, pigs, foxes, badgers, bamboo rats, hedgehogs, and snakes.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1#the-huanan-wholesale-seafood-market-in-wuhan-closed-on-january-1-after-it-was-found-to-be-the-most-likely-starting-point-for-the-outbreak-of-this-coronavirus-called-2019-ncov-1 The outbreaks of both the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS likely started in Chinese wet markets. Photos show what the markets look like.]", ''Business Insider''</ref>

CNN kept the ball rolling for Chinese propagandists reporting that previous coronavirus outbreaks include SARS-CoV in 2002-2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012. Both of these strains originated in bats. SARS was transferred to humans through a masked palm civet, presumably in a Chinese wet market. MERS was transferred through a camel in Saudi Arabia. The protein codes in the Wuhan virus are most similar to those found in snakes, so it is possible that the virus jumped to humans from a snake. Snakes often hunt bats for food, but disease rarely transmits from a warm-blooded animal to a cold-blooded animal.<ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/22/health/snakes-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-conversation-partner/index.html Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak]," CNN, January 24, 2020.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Coronavirus}}
[[Category:Coronavirus]]

COVID-19

2020-05-19T15:08:25Z

Timber2: /* Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use */ Up-dated

<center>''See [[coronavirus]] for a more substantive explanation.''</center>
'''Coronavirus disease 2019''', or '''COVID-19''' or '''Covid-19''', is the name of the disease caused by a novel strain of the [[coronavirus]] (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) identified as originating in [[Wuhan, China]] in late November and early December 2019.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17], Josephine Ma, 13 Mar, 2020. www.scmp.com</ref> The reaction to the strain became [[pandemic]], reaching every continent on the planet by March 2020. Genetic mapping suggests that the Wuhan virus is related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) of 2002 and 2003 as well as to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 to the present. Covid-19 is considered highly infectious with an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2. The mortality rate is described as considerably less than 1 percent. By comparison, the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.1 percent, SARS was 9 to 10 percent, and MERS was 36 percent.<ref name="Fauci">Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., "[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted]," ''New England Journal of Medicine'', March 26, 2020.</ref>

A great deal of research is being conducted on this virus. The first vaccine candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring 2020. Therapy is currently limited to supportive care. Medication in current use include the antiviral drugs lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon-1β, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.<ref name="Fauci" />

Because of the [[virus]]' ability to replicate exponentially it is difficult to calculate the total number of people infected, as well as a definitive mortality rate. Quantifying total infections is hampered by the number of test kits available, as well as trained personnel to interpret the results of a novel, previously unknown, virus. The exponential rate of infections can overwhelm healthcare facilities and healthcare givers. With only experimental treatments available for a previously unknown virus, experts recommend persons with symptoms remain home so as to not infect others, or even if your symptoms are unrelated to Covid-19 you could become infected at hospitals where carriers likely are present.

Many carriers of the virus show no symptoms at all, and may never show symptoms. Social distancing, remaining at least 6 feet away from other people, is recommended to avoid infection and for an untested, [[asymptomatic]] (showing no symptoms) carrier to avoid spreading the virus. Each survivor of the virus must build immunity through antibodies. Therefore the size of a persons initial exposure to the virus is crucial.

Ultimately, experts have stated, some 80% of the planet will be exposed to the infection between 2019 and 2021. [[Herd immunity]] eventually will develop in the human species to survive against the infection. Until a widespread vaccine becomes available in later 2020 or in 2021, practicing such basic habits as handwashing, social distancing, wearing masks to avoid spreading or catching the infection, avoid touch the mucus membranes of your mouth, nose, and eyes, and other sanitary habits are highly recommended for persons who chose to survive this global [[pandemic]].

The virus has the ability to survive on surfaces, such as door knobs, money, tables, floors, etc. Maintaining cleanliness and avoiding contact with surfaces commonly used by the general public is also recommended.

== Atheistic, Chinese Communist Party and the COVID-19 pandemic ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic]]

The [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) mandates its members be [[atheists]] (see: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[militant atheism]] and [[State atheism]]).<ref>[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''</ref>

The CCP tried to cover up the emergence of the COVID-19 which prevented the pandemic being contained in its early stages.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>

China allowed thousands of COVID-19 infected people leave China during the early stage of the pandemic when the world was not aware of it.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-china-confronting-chinese-communist-party/ To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture], National Review</ref>

''The Atlantic'' reported concerning the role of the CCP to allow the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to spread in China and globally during its early stages:
{{Cquote|China has a history of mishandling outbreaks, including SARS in 2002 and 2003. But Chinese leaders’ negligence in December and January—for well over a month after the first outbreak in Wuhan—far surpasses those bungled responses. The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.”

This is what allowed the virus to spread across the globe. Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>}}

==Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use ==
''See also:'' [[Vladimir Zelenko]] and [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

As of March 27, 2020, the most successful doctor treating coronavirus patients is [[Vladimir Zelenko]], M.D. as none of this 699 patients have died or have required intubations whereas 1.5% of U.S. coronavirus patients die.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSHM1TK5tM Vladimir Zelenko: Important March 27, 2020 update regarding my coronavirus treatment regimen]</ref> See: [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

[[President Donald Trump]] expressed optimism that Dr. Zelenko's treatment could be expanded to meet the threat of the deadly disease during the national emergency. Several [[Democrat]] governors subsequently issued [[executive order]]s banning the treatment.<ref>https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/03/democrats-fear-cure.html</ref> On March 30, 2020, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] granted expedited approval of [[hydroxychloroquine]] nationwide for treatment of Covid-19.<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency-authorization-anti-malaria-drug-155095</ref> [[War on science|Anti-science]] [[Democrat]] governors however, showing no regard for the lives of their people, resisted the FDA approved treatment.

President Trump is now taking hydroxychloroquine, though he first checked with his personal physician that it was safe to do so, in accordance with the FDA's warning on April 30 of potentially dangerous side effects.<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref

== Origin of Covid-19 virus ==
:{{See also|CCP pandemic coverup}}
Chinese students researchers indicated the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November 2019 from a place other than the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. A study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market.<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml</ref> The Chinese Communist Party deleted the page.

===''The Lancet'' disputes CCP wet market claims===
CCP propaganda outfits announced the virus may have originated at a government laboratory only 280 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. Disease-ridden animals, including more than 600 horseshoe bats, were kept at the facility. A Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, ''Ming Pao'', and the British daily, ''The Mirror'' explained that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, or WHCDC, could have spawned the contagion in Hubei Province. It stated that it's plausible the virus was leaked from the lab and contaminated initial patients in this epidemic. Sen. [[Tom Cotton]], citing ''The Lancet'', tweeted
{{quotebox|China claimed—for almost two months—that coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan seafood market. That is not the case. @TheLancet published a study demonstrating that of the original 40 cases, 14 of them had no contact with the seafood market, including Patient Zero.<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tom-cotton-implies-coronavirus-originated-in-wuhan-super-laboratory</ref>}}
This suggests that there was an earlier source of the virus that is unrelated to the seafood market and that has not yet been traced. If this theory is correct, the infection originated no later than November and infected the seafood market in December. The case histories and the pattern of infection were known to Chinese researchers from the beginning, so earlier reports fingering the market may have been intentionally misleading.<ref>Cohen, Jon, "[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally]," ''Science'', Jan. 26, 2020.</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'', which routinely publishes Chinese Communist [[propaganda]], blasted Sen. Cotton over his comments.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/washington-post-uses-chinese-propaganda-in-attempt-to-blast-sen-tom-cotton-over-coronavirus-comments/</ref>

On February 6, 2020 scientists from the South China University of Technology uploaded a paper on the origins of Coronavirus:
{{quotebox|The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory…… The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.<ref>http://archive.is/ATNpb</ref>}}
China's leftwing censors however deleted the content.<ref>https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831465/posts</ref>

===Dr. Li issues public warning===
[[Dr. Li Wenliang]] was an ophthalmologist in [[Wuhan, China]] who became a [[whistleblower]] and victim of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). Efforts by Dr. Li to alert the Chinese people to the danger of the [[CCP coronavirus]] in late December 2019, and his subsequent death 5 weeks later did not go unpunished. Dr. Li has been elevated to the status of saint and folk hero among the Chinese people.

On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li posted the lab test result of a coronavirus patient in a group chat to a class of about 150 students writing:
{{Quotebox|“7 cases of SARS have been confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market and they were isolated in the emergency department of our hospital. Please tell your families to take preventative measures.”}}
Some doctors confirmed that healthcare workers were starting to become infected around this time, a significant sign that the virus could spread between humans. Health officials in Wuhan were alerted. Instead of ramping up safety measures and alerting the public, on the same day they issued a notice forbidding all medical institutes or individuals from disclosing any information regarding the new disease. At midnight, Dr. Li was summoned by the CCP Security Police. They questioned him about why he was spreading rumors online.

On December 31, Wuhan's health commission posted an announcement about the outbreak on their website. They confirmed 27 cases of the infection and said there was no evidence that the disease was contagious among humans. According to a research paper written by Chinese officials, which was published later, the number of virus cases had reached at least 105 by the end of 2019. At that point, 15 people had already died. A media report also showed that one major hospital in Wuhan, Xiehe Hospital, was forced to transform an entire floor of the facility into “quarantine space for contagious disease.” [[Taiwan]] officials notified the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) that the virus was being spread from human-to-human.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/20/who-taiwan-coronavirus-warning/</ref> Communist party officials in China and military personnel began taking preventative measures, however the public was never alerted.

====8 doctors arrested for issuing public warnings====
On January 3, 2020 Dr. Li was asked to sign a confession to charges of committing [[crime]]s against the [[leftist]] regime, spreading “illegal and false” information and that he had “severely disrupted social order.” 7 other doctors also were charged. The confesion read:
{{quotebox|"On December 30, 2019, WeChat group "Clinical Wuhan University 04" issued untrue statements about 7 cases of SARS diagnosed in the South China fruit and seafood market. Now raise warnings and admonitions according to law on the illegal issue of untrue statements on the [[Internet]]. Your behavior severely disrupts social order. Your behavior has exceeded the scope permitted by [[law]], and it violates the relevant provisions of the Law of the [[People's Republic of China]] on Public Security Management Penalties, which is an [[illegal]] act! The public security organ hopes that you will actively cooperate with your work, follow the advice of the [[police]], and stop the illegal behavior. can you do it? Answer: Yes We hope that you calm down and reflect carefully, and solemnly warn you: if you are stubborn, do not think about [[repentance]], and continue to carry out illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! do you understand? Answer: understand"<ref>WikiCommons, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E6%9D%8E%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%9A%84%E8%AE%AD%E8%AF%AB%E4%B9%A6.png File:李文亮的训诫书.png]</ref>}}

====CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins cover up ====
On December 31, 2019 the CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declared, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.<ref>https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IzzCnz4Yr2jEIYZePiu_ow</ref><ref>[[User:RobSmith/Text of article censored by Google translate]]</ref>

The CCP employed standard [[technocrat]]ic and [[bureaucrat]]ic rhetoric to qualm public fears:
{{quotebox|Twenty-seven cases have been found , of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

Wuhan organized the consultation of clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts in Tongji Hospital, Provincial Center for Disease Control, [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]], Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and other units, and the experts returned from the disease and treatment, Epidemiological investigation, preliminary laboratory tests and other aspects of the situation analysis that the above cases are viral pneumonia. The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.}}
Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”<ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3044050/mystery-illness-hits-chinas-wuhan-city-nearly-30-hospitalised</ref>

====WHO collusion with CCP====
[[File:WHO-CCP Wuhan virus.PNG|right|300px|thumb|The WHO tweeted misinformation from the Chinese Communist Party that the world had nothing to fear from the coronavirus outbreak.]]
Li was ordered to return to work where he contracted the virus. On January 6, 2020 the center for disease control in [[Shanghai]] acquired the complete gene sequencing of the new virus. They found over 89 percent similarity between the new virus and the deadly SARS virus that caused a pandemic in 2003. The information was sent to China's national CDC in an internal document. From January 6 to January 17, CCP officials reported zero new cases. In the 11 day period the communist authorities in Wuhan City and Hubei Province held their most important annual political meetings. Over 2,000 “representatives of the people” gathered to discuss the “amazing achievements of 2019” and how 2020 will be “a tremendous and promising year.” There was little mention of the coronavirus. On January 14 the [[World Health Organization]] [[tweet]]ed,
{{Quotebox|"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan #China<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/flashback-who-china-coronavirus-contagious/</ref>}}
The same day a group of [[Hong Kong]] journalists accompanied Hong Kong experts who were invited to conduct research on the virus outbreak. The reporters were later detained by Chinese Security Police, who photographed their reporter IDs and asked them to delete all footage taken inside hospitals.

At this same time a post on the Chinese [[social media]] site Weibo, a person's dad was confirmed to have viral pneumonia. But the Xiehe Hospital in Wuhan refused to admit the father due to a shortage of hospital beds. Another netizen posted that his entire family was infected. They went to the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and saw that “there were so many patients that some had to lie on the floor of the corridor.” His father was also sent home to self-quarantine because there weren't enough hospital beds. The post was later deleted. So were all other posts in the user's account.<ref>https://www.ntd.com/a-timeline-of-events-leading-up-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china_442592.html</ref> That was the week Wuhan authorities didn't report a single confirmed or suspected case.

From January 12 to 16, an estimated 3 million passengers left Wuhan by train over the Chinese New Year holiday, to visit family and friends in other cities in China. On January 17, 2020 Wuhan's tourism bureau issued over 200,000 free tourism tickets. It was an effort to entice people to visit the city so they could experience the “Chinese style and warm sentiments of Wuhan.” On January 18, Baibuting, a populous district in Wuhan, held an annual banquet to celebrate the Lunar New Year holiday. Three days before, staff from the neighborhood committee who were concerned about the outbreak asked if they could cancel the banquet, but communist officials denied the request. Over 40,000 families attended the banquet. Local communist apparatchiks ordered labs to stop testing for the virus and destroy the existing samples.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRagZsnEc2Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

World Health Organization (WHO) boss [[Tadros Adhanom]] was a leader in [[Ethiopia]]'s Tigray People's Liberation Front, a wing of the ruling [[Marxist]] Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. Adhanom served the repressive regime as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 after a stint as Health Minister. As a candidate for the top post, ''The New York Times'' accused Tad Adhanom of covering up at least three [[epidemic]]s.<ref>http://archive.is/9B2Zy</ref>

The Communist regime did not allow the WHO into China until February 10, 2020 - more than two months after the first cases were observed.
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/wuhan-coronavirus-update-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>

Researchers have identified a "tipping point" at which the virus goes from dangerous to deadly in extremely susceptible patients. A WHO report written 18 days later based on observation in China stated that 80% of infections ("mild cases") can self-isolate, 13% require hospitalization, and 6% require intensive care. While many patients experience nothing more than a mild cold, one in seven patients develops difficulty breathing and other "severe" complications, while 6% become critically ill and require hospitalization to stabilize their condition, risking death if they can't receive the highest level of care.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/scientists-warn-about-dangerous-tipping-point-where-covid-19-goes-mild-deadly</ref> Some questions remain regarding whether the developed world has enough hospital beds available to treat cases requiring hospitalization. WHO said the coronavirus ''infection rate'' (as opposed to death rate) was thought to be the same as the flu when the virus was only known in China but has since been found to be ''two to three times that infectious''.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-raises-death-rate-and-risk-of-coronavirus-one-expert-declares-wwii/</ref>

Tad Adhamon criticized travel bans to and from China saying, "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade." The WHO was not allowed into China until February 10, 2020, more than two months after the virus was first discovered. Adhanom praised the CCP's response: "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated," and "China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response." Film clips of Adhanom are shown on Chinese television saying, "China took action massively at the epicenter at the source of the outbreak. This is heroic. The actions of China is making us safer."

Peter Humphrey, a British investigator who was jailed in China in 2013 had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and made to read out a statement written by the police in front of cameras. The anchor who presented the footage, James Chao, is now a goodwill ambassador with the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization is horribly corrupt. An audit revealed there has been a surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the
organization with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body, overwhelming an internal team of full-time investigators. An ''[[Associated Press]]'' expose in 2017 found that nearly half of the WHO two billion dollar budget went to first-class airfare and five-star hotels. The United States is the largest contributor US taxpayers fund about a quarter of the WHO budget. The WHO is working with [[Google]] to ensure that people get information from the [[UN]] health agency first when they search for information about the virus.

====Dr. Li's exoneration and death====
On January 20 [[President Xi]] finally acknowledged the crisis.<ref>https://thecritic.co.uk/the-coronavirus-cover-up/</ref> On January 23 the entire city of Wuhan, 11 million people, was put on lockdown. By the end of the month 50 million Chinese were on lockdown. On January 28, the Supreme Court of the Communist Party of China issued a statement that Dr. Li and the other "rumor makers" had been "rectified", but it was too late.

On the evening of February 6, Dr. Li died. The news quickly aroused strong attention and condemnation. However, Wuhan Central Hospital later issued a microblog saying that Li Wenliang was in critical condition and doctors were working to save his life. A number of insiders and doctors disclosed on social media that in the process, the authorities faced public indignation and ordered a series of attempts at resuscitation, but to no avail. A few hours later, the news of Li Wenliang's death again was released and detonated on WeChat and Weibo. By 6 a.m. local time, the keywords " Dr. Li Wenliang's death " and "Li Wenliang's death" ranked high on the Weibo topic list, with a total of 670 million views and 737,000 discussions.<ref>https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/07/a102771379.html</ref> Before the end of the day news of Dr. Li's death had over 1.5 billion views on Weibo.<ref>https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-chinese-public-mourns-rages-over-death-of-doctor-who-raised-early-alarm</ref> An announcement on NTD of Dr. Li's death read:
{{quotebox| [NTD Beijing, February 07, 2020] Dr. Wenliang Li , who first announced Wuhan pneumonia, died at the age of 34 on the evening of the 6th due to improper treatment of a new coronavirus infection. His death ignited a new wave of angry tsunami among the public over the CCP's concealment. After Li Wenliang's death was exposed on the [[Internet]], the authorities, under pressure from public opinion, pretended to rescue the whole person, and performed 3 hours of chest compressions and electric shocks on the dead Li Wenliang, causing his ribs to be completely broken and beyond recognition . 

On February 7th, an independent economist, "Financial Cold Eye" (@charles984681), tweeted that the hospital director was afraid that Li Wenliang's death would lead to public outrage. After 3 hours of death, he was continuously subjected to CPR, which is the shock of cardiac resuscitation. It usually takes only a few minutes. After three hours, Li Wenliang's ribs were completely broken and beyond recognition . Tweeted that
*"Dr. Li was wronged alive, and he was abused after his death! With the worst of malice, I can't imagine how despicable this devil behavior is." 

In this regard, many netizens have commented: 
*"Too evil!" 
*"Under the autocratic system, the people of Li Min are nothing but the servants of the nobles." 
*"It is most likely a premeditated murder. This person has become a serious trouble for the nobles!" 

In addition, many network screenshots showed that Li Wenliang's treatment was extremely inadequate and timely, and the hospital director was under pressure. Li Wenliang was the worst one among the eight. Li Wenliang's lung film, all white! I never thought about letting him live! This man will be regarded as a hero in the United States! He was killed directly in the CCP! His wife ’s unborn child was also hit!

It is reported that Li Wenliang stopped his heartbeat at 9:30 and was intubated 20 minutes later. Finally, he went to ECMO (artificial lung) for a symbolic rescue to calm the anger of hundreds of millions of netizens. CCP officials have been rebuked as "political rescue.".....

There was a regret on the Internet that "the hero is gone", and lamented, angered, and rebuked the CCP "this regime has committed [[crimes against humanity]]!"

*"Burning !!! Doctor Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, leaving his wife and unborn child. Wuhan government, Hubei government, don't you give an explanation? Without heart, as human beings, the TAs are just humans! See At the time of this news, do you have any trace of guilt and regret for those "killers" who indirectly kill people? "

*"This time, the doctor who first warned the Chinese and the world and informed you of the epidemic was sacrificed today. He is Li Wenliang. After the epidemic was announced, he and several other doctors were arrested by the public security ... With the incident exposed, the Chinese government must Do n’t apologize. The official said it was because of the infection, and we have reason to suspect how he died? "

Password of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

It is said that the magnitude of the rebound [public reaction] has unexpectedly surprised the CCP, and the CCP propaganda department has issued a password.

Independent economist Qin Peng tweeted that the official propaganda requirements of the CCP came out as soon as possible.

*"Regarding the death of Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan Central Hospital, we must strictly standardize the source [control the narrative] of the manuscript. We are strictly forbidden to use media reports to report without permission. We must not pop-up the window, do not comment or speculate. Search and strictly control harmful information. "

Qin Peng said that if it were not for the life-threatening plague, how many Chinese people could not imagine the evil of the Chinese Communist Party!<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/f0pmw8/rumored_dr_li_wenliangs_ribs_were_completely/</ref> }}

===Illegal bioweapon research in Wuhan===
One theory that has recently been postulated is that the coronavirus may be linked to Chinese bio-weapons research.<ref>https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2020-01-24-virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-to-chinese-bio-warfare-program/?pname=local_social&keyid=KTRH&sc=editorial</ref> The city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, has the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where "''...it was reported to have studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, the H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue''".<ref>http://www.tibetanreview.net/did-the-wuhan-virus-escape-from-chinas-bio-weapons-lab/</ref> A second facility nearby, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is also listed one of eight research facilities under the 1985 Biological Weapons Convention, of which China is a signatory.

Dr Francis Boyle is an eminent professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in the U.S. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, Dr Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, gave a detailed statement on how the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knew about it.<ref>https://greatgameindia.com/dr-francis-boyle-creator-of-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-biological-warfare-weapon/</ref>

The State Department issued a report in 2019 stating "''Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC."''<ref>https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf</ref> For its part, China has stated that it does not engage in bio-weapons engineering,<ref>https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/biological/</ref> despite discussion of bio and genetic weapons being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese military,<ref>https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-military-biotech-frontier-crispr-military-civil-fusion-and-the-new-revolution-in-military-affairs/</ref> as well as a "white paper" drafted in 2001 which stressed ''"...in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC, a necessary verification mechanism should be established"''.<ref>https://media.nti.org/pdfs/5a_1.pdf</ref>

[[India]]n researchers have found [[HIV]]-derived inserts in the coronavirus [[genome]] that compound the infectious potential and greatly bolster the argument this virus was developed as a bioterror weapon. A 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment by [[John Brennan]] and the US [[Intelligence Community]] lists China as a major potential “terror actor” and genome editing as a major terror risk.<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/01/coronavirus-the-plot-thickens/</ref>

Many have expressed skepticism of the bio-weapon theory. Dr Malcolm Davis, a defense analyst in Australia, tweeted ''"If evidence came to the fore to support such a theory, then yes - but so far, none has. Its more likely the virus jumped from an animal into humans in the Wuhan markets."''.<ref>https://m.noosanews.com.au/news/mystery-lab-30km-from-virus-ground-zero/3931000/</ref> New organizations - many left-leaning - have also stated that conspiracy theories have been created almost as soon as the news of the pandemic reached the public.<ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-china-lab-mortality-virology-wuhan-virus-not-bioweapon/</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51271037</ref>

===Early cover story===
:{{See also|CCP propaganda war}}
On January 23, 2020 the Wuhan virus exploded. While Wuhan announced the lockdown of the city, Dr. [[Shi Zhengli]] of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who had isolated the bat virus, spliced it, and made it transmissible to humans, provided the official Chinese communist cover story that the virus arose in nature. Shi published a paper in the authoritative science journal, ''Nature'' on February 3, 2020 stating that the Wuhan coronavirus was of probable bat origin.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7</ref> The paper indicated that the Wuhan virus utilized the same key as SARS to gain entry into the human body. She also announced the 2019-nCoV genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in [[Yunnan]], China, called RaTG13, signaling a natural source of the Wuhan virus.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/24/study-china-lied-wuhan-virus-did-not-originate-in-meat-market/</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' picked up the Chinese fake news narrative and indicated "The trigger point for the current coronavirus remains unclear, but [[China]] has linked the outbreak to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which despite its name also appeared to be selling live cats and dogs, wild chickens, snakes and marmots."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-outbreak-underscores-potential-health-risks-in-chinas-wild-animal-trade/2020/01/25/5f5353be-3f6f-11ea-971f-4ce4f94494b4_story.html Coronavirus outbreak underscores potential health risks in China’s wild animal trade], ''Washington Post'', 2020</ref> CNN reported concerning China: "Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals including rodents, yak, snakes and even porcupines, and experts say that makes them far more dangerous. The meat could contain deadly pathogens like the coronavirus."<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/world/coronavirus-china-bans-wildlife-trade-trnd/index.html Chinese officials crack down on wildlife markets as coronavirus outbreak nears 3,000 cases]</ref>

"Wet market" refers to the blood of animals slain on the spot. The first case can be traced back to November 17, 2019, and the first death on December 9, 2019. Some cases were rumored among stallholders from the Wuhan South China Seafood Market in early December but hushed up by Chinese authorities.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxZ1XIYmGc&feature=push-prem-sub&attr_tag=Pi2j7UuDGqgDAixI%3A6</ref> This market is said to have sold processed meats and live animals, including chickens, donkeys, sheep, pigs, foxes, badgers, bamboo rats, hedgehogs, and snakes.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1#the-huanan-wholesale-seafood-market-in-wuhan-closed-on-january-1-after-it-was-found-to-be-the-most-likely-starting-point-for-the-outbreak-of-this-coronavirus-called-2019-ncov-1 The outbreaks of both the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS likely started in Chinese wet markets. Photos show what the markets look like.]", ''Business Insider''</ref>

CNN kept the ball rolling for Chinese propagandists reporting that previous coronavirus outbreaks include SARS-CoV in 2002-2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012. Both of these strains originated in bats. SARS was transferred to humans through a masked palm civet, presumably in a Chinese wet market. MERS was transferred through a camel in Saudi Arabia. The protein codes in the Wuhan virus are most similar to those found in snakes, so it is possible that the virus jumped to humans from a snake. Snakes often hunt bats for food, but disease rarely transmits from a warm-blooded animal to a cold-blooded animal.<ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/22/health/snakes-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-conversation-partner/index.html Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak]," CNN, January 24, 2020.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Coronavirus}}
[[Category:Coronavirus]]

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-19T00:29:07Z

Timber2: /* Christian socialism */ William Blake?

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Communism and Socialism does not criticism Mammon; it advocates the transfer of Mammon worship and Mammon's power to a clique of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 21:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, this is ☭Comrade GC☭ at an atheist website.

He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times and another administrator at the website blocked me after the website imposed arbitrary and authoritarian rules. I am referring to [[Essay: Why RationalWiki is dying|THIS WEBSITE]].

Of course, it isn't working. Why would anyone feel threatened by someone who resorts to deleting material after they prove themselves incapable of debate?

RobSmith, ask him why the Soviet Union collapsed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:It's a debate raging for years, whether there is some altruistic motive behind Marxism and hairsplitting over the degree to which atheistic and murderous ideologies can be criticized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 11:22, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::[[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], obviously you remain convinced that there is no difference between socialism and communism. While the USSR's communists failed, socialism most certainly hasn't. Millions of people throughout the world, who were not born into wealth, can attest to that fact. All political parties in Canada, Britain, and numerous other countries have had to modify their ideologies because of the success of socialist ideas, even the Republican Party. Recently, I was heartened to learn of Robert M. La Follette Sr., a Republican senator for Wisconsin (1906 to 1925), who supported child labour laws, social security, women’s suffrage, and other progressive reforms. He even ran for President in 1924 as a Progressive. But maybe it's Christianity that has been the influence on such Republicans rather than socialism?

::So it looks like the article will remain seriously flawed for now? I note, however, Conservapedia's strange enthusiasm (overall) for former communist [[Vladimir Putin]]. Actually though a communist, interestingly, he apparently was baptised.

:::[[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]], I fail to understand your comments. Are you suggesting that I am another person, with whom you've had a major conflict with elsewhere: "He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times"? Please clarify. I'd forgotten that the site mentioned even existed. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
::The difference between socialism and communism, ''per'' Marx's own writings, socialism is the phase of communism in a politically pluralist society prior to socialist gaining ascendency and outlawing political opposition. Ideologically, there is no difference. They are two sides of the same coin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 13:16, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::As I've already noted you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Are you a historian or political scientist? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::::See [[Labour party]] for a more balanced article on socialism in Britain.

I don't think it's helpful to conflate socialism and Marxism (or liberalism, for that matter), particularly in the British case. British socialism was forged from non-conformist protestant Christianity not in the 1800s, when the reform movement led to the co-operative and Labour movements, not in 1700s, when radicals looked to France and the US for new ways of thinking, but in the 1600s in the same crucible that gave is the Pilgrim Fathers. 1649 saw "The World Turned Upside Down" and many saw a chance to turn Britain into a Christian state, starting with land and property reform to bring us closer to the prelapsarian ideal.

Ironically, this may be the root of the huge difference - and gulf in understanding - between British and US conservatism. It's no coincidence that, until the 1970s and 80s, it was the British left that looked to the US as an example. Conservatives tended to look within or to Europe. [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 19:03, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

This leaves me wondering how [[William Blake]] might fit into the picture? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Free market

2020-05-19T00:11:46Z

Timber2:

Good addition in the intro, however let's look at this:
*'' They act ostensibly to protect the national interest, but often baser motives are at play, particularly the desire to curry favour with their electorates. ''
The Duelfer Report, for example says,
*''Iraq’s economic decline forced the Regime to accept the UN [Oil For Food] (OFF) program; this resulted in economic recovery and underpinned a more confident Regime posture. [https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html]
and
*''[Oil For Food] rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

So....in a dictatorship, while it's arguable the lone dictator making decisions to pursue WMD may or may not serve the national interest, and it certainly is a baser motive at play, it is questionable to say this it is intended to curry favor with the electorate. While that may be true in democracies, we can't make a wholesale statment like this, or need to clarify what is being said. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Idealized construct==

Marshall, if you think the free market is only an idealized construct, please provide evidence of this.

On the other hand, if you don't ''know'' this to be true, but are only repeating the opinion of an economist (or maybe some political critic of [[Capitalism]]), be sure to credit the person whose views you are summarizing. A direct quote is even better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Not wishing to impede upon this, however, strictly speaking, the free market is merely an idealized construct. If we are to take the definition of a free maket as being an economy in which there is "no interference on the part of government", and in which the interaction of supply and demand leads to the market clearing (i.e. is at equilibrium and is allocatively efficient) - this is, in practice, virtually impossible. If we are to assume that all firms are profit maximizers, then the only market structure in which it is possible to maximize profits (producing where Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost), while at the same time achieving an allocatively efficient outcome (where S=D), is within a perfectly competitive market. However, in reality, a number of the conditions required for perfect competition are impossible to achieve - for instance, perfect and complete information. Similarly, rarely, if ever, do firms sell homogenous products (another criterion required for perfect competition). Indeed, in reality, the only markets that can be said to bear any resemblance to perfect competition, and even in these conditions, perfect information is not achieved. Even if you are to take a lesser definition, and merely require there to be a state of competition between firms, and no government interference, then this too is fraught with problems, most notably that outside of perfect competition there exists a tendency for markets to drift toward monopoly, if government fails to intervene.

If, however, you are simply going to define a free market economy as being a one in which there exists no form of government interference, then, this is theoretically possible, however, whenever countries have attempted to bring about these conditions, the outcome has often been to the detriment of the country involved, many would cite Somalia as an example.

If you'd like some criticisms of the free market system, from a socialist perspective, Noam Chomsky's writings on the issue are quite interesting, drawing largely on the work of Adam Smith. However, if you'd prefer the capitalist critique, then I'd recommend you check out Joseph Stiglitz and Martin J. Whitman.

--[[User:Adorno|Adorno]] 10:22, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:You seem to be talking past me. Are you confusing "no interference" with "little interference"?

:Or are you ''making the point'' that free markets don't exist in practice, any more than "[[communism]]" (in the sense of the ideal [[stateless society]] Marx envisioned) exists? If so, please be clear.

:If you are just making points and don't care to add to the article, please continue this thread at [[Debate:Is free market economics possible in actual practice?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

::Government exists to protect the market; in a state of chaos or anarchy, the biggest thief with the biggest guns who leads the lawless mob will trample honest businessmen and traders. Yes, so to a certain extent, the market is an idealized construct, but it is in conjunction with human beings voluntarily living under a civil government. When the government gets in the business of robbing honest businessmen and traders to, as the author states, "curry favour with their electorates" or feed the rapacious demands of selfish dictators, this is where problems develop. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==Stuff==
Removing the sentence about Canada: because the British system has already been described, because patients fleeing Canadian healthcare system isn't the focus of the article and because it wasn't cited (see [[Conservapedia:Commandments]])
If anyone would provide a reliable source for the claim, and explain what it has to do with the article, I promise I won't argue about it :)
(+ added that Milton Freeman was an economist to give readers unfamiliar with him (like myself) an idea of why he's quoted) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 10:45, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Can a market be fully free, if as economist Milton Friedman said: "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit"? There has to be government agencies to protect employees and customers from those who worship money above all else: think smoking, alcohol, child labour, drug testing, food quality, education, the professions, building standards, pollution, safety in the work-place, and so on. Think Covid-19 and no quarantine regulations, too. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:11, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

Free market

2020-05-18T23:37:40Z

Timber2: Copy edi – brief quotation

A '''free market''' is a term in [[economics]] that refers to an economy operating with little to no interference on the part of a government. The central pillar of free market economy is voluntary exchanges without the use of any kind of coercion or violence.<ref>[http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html Free Market], ''Concise Encyclopedia of Economics''</ref> This type of economic philosophy is the backbone to the system of [[capitalism]], and is sometimes referred to by the [[French]] phrase "[[laissez-faire]]," meaning to "let be." Free markets are largely dependent on the process of [[supply and demand]], where prices are determined by the amount of the product in the market, as well as the number of consumers who wish to purchase that product. The market will punish businesses whose practices are not beneficial, as consumers will take their business elsewhere. [[Communism]] and [[socialism]] are the antithesis of the '''free market'''.

The opposite of a free market is a command system, in which the government regulates all businesses for the theoretical central planning of the economy, although this has been shown to have negative effects. Economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] warned however of mixing a [[planned economy]] with a competitive economy, "a mixture of the two means that neither will work." <ref>Friedrich A. Hayek, [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 38.</ref>

A ''[[mixed economy]]'' contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and command economy. For example, the UK is said to have a free market economy in almost all goods and services but retains a bureaucratic socialised healthcare regime. This is justified on the grounds that it will ensure that British subjects have access to health care which is supported out of state coffers.

In an interview on [[PBS]], libertarian economist [[Milton Friedman]] said: "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html |title=Commanding Heights: Interview with Milton Friedman |work=[[PBS]] |date=October 1, 2000 }}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Austrian economics]]
* [[Gerrymandering]]

==External links==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNdPrJySGdA The Prager University about Free Market Morality]

==References==
<references/>

{{Conservatism}}
{{Economic preparedness topics}}

[[Category:Economic Preparedness]]

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]

Labor union

2020-05-18T23:32:36Z

Timber2: Copy edit

A '''labor union''' or ''trade union'' is an organization formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers. Unions often interfere with free enterprise, as in opposing entrepreneurship that creates competition.

'''Labor unions''' can include collectively bargaining with [[employer]]s in order to agree on rates of pay and other conditions of employment. [[Conservatives]] tolerate the right of workers to form unions but oppose compulsory union membership, as required by law in most states, and mandatory dues that are spent on [[liberal]] projects.

Liberals, Democrats, and [[RINO]]s are big supporters of unions, and count on their influence to reelect them. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>http://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/why-the-democratic-party-union-relationship-is-corrupt/</ref> Unions frequently promote left-wing policies, including compulsory schooling, abortion, and the [[homosexual agenda]]. While unions are relatively critical of [[globalist]] "free trade" deals, they do not use the same reasoning as conservatives,<ref>Byas, Steve (May 9, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/29018-big-labor-opposition-to-tpp-is-not-about-american-sovereignty Big Labor Opposition to TPP Is Not About American Sovereignty]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> and many of them have criticized the [[Trump Administration]]'s trade policies.<ref>Higgins, Sean (June 15, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/us-eu-unions-issue-joint-slam-on-trump-trade-policy US, EU unions issue joint slam on Trump trade policy]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> Many attribute some of the negative aspects of [[public schools]] to the [[National Education Association]] and other teachers' unions. School support personnel unions oppose [[outsourcing]] of school support services, sometimes even when it would be beneficial for the support employees. Teachers' unions and school support employee unions are often very active in school board elections. Some unions support far-left abortion policies despite those policies having nothing to do with the unions' stated focuses or goals.<ref>Everson, Ryan (July 11, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nothing-to-do-with-labor-americas-largest-union-adopts-radical-abortion-stance Nothing to do with labor: Largest union in US adopts radical abortion stance]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 11, 2019.</ref>

[[Wal-Mart]] has been so successful by opposing the formation of unions among its workers, and has closed a profitable store down before allowing any union to exist in it.

There are generally two types of unions: private sector unions and public sector unions; some unions have members in both the private and public sectors.

==Communist infiltration==
For decades, labor unions have frequently been infiltrated by [[Communism|Communists]], which have used unions for the purposes of advancing Communism.<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/labor-unions-and-communism/ Labor unions and Communism] at the ''Washington Times''</ref><ref>[http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/02/red-unions-how-why-big-labor-leaders-betray-their-nation/ RED UNIONS: How & Why Big Labor Leaders Betray Their Nation]</ref> [[Organized crime]] has also infiltrated and corrupted labor unions over time.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/ Crime and Corruption]</ref><ref>[http://www.laborers.org/VAIRA_MEMO.html Organized Crime and the Labor Unions]</ref> Under the combined influence of Communism and organized crime, labor unions and their members have often resorted in cowardly fashion to threats (including death threats), intimidation and illegal acts of thuggery and violence to get their way during strike actions and other labor disputes, as well as when their corruption, inefficiency, and deliberate incompetence is exposed and attempts to oppose and purge their radical positions and either reform the unions or rid them from businesses and public institutions are made.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/examples-of-union-threats-violence-and-intimidation/ Examples of Union Threats, Violence and Intimidation]</ref><ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/11/07/labor-union-violence-in-america-a-brief-history/ Labor Union Violence in America: A Brief History]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-liberal-history-of-union-thuggery-and-civil-rights-perversion/ A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion]</ref> Such actions by unions have served as an argument by their opponents for the abolition of labor unions entirely, not only as being outdated and unnecessary in today's society, but also because unions are seen as excuses for extortion (through forced union dues and taxes), corruption (including through forced compulsory membership and denial of work to anyone who refuses to join a union, as well as high labor prices charged for deliberately shoddy and substandard work) and political manipulation (through the Democrats and the [[Communist Party USA]]) and as havens for thugs, criminals and Communists.<ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2011/11/congress-should-outlaw-all-unions-and-eventually-abolish-them-1399191.html Congress Should Outlaw All Unions and Eventually Abolish Them]</ref>

==Union boss hypocrisy==
Despite their criticism of high salaries for CEOs (the average CEO salary is not as high as they claim) and their stated support for workers, union bosses have very high salaries.<ref>Chiaramonte, Perry (May 12, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/afl-cio-paywatch-report-slams-ceo-pay-but-not-high-pay-its-own-execs.html AFL-CIO 'Paywatch' report slams CEO pay but not the high pay of its own execs]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Blitzer, Ronn (December 26, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/embattled-union-honchos-lavish-spending-exposed-villas-four-figure-dinners-cigars Embattled union honchos’ lavish spending exposed: Villas, four-figure dinners, $60,000 cigar bill]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2019.</ref><ref>Neale Spencer (December 27, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-united-auto-workers-presidents-accused-of-spending-1m-on-cigars-golf-and-dinners Former United Automobile Workers presidents accused of spending $1M on cigars, golf, and dinners]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 27, 2019.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[American labor unions]]
* [[Right to work]]

==External links==
*[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy Studies on Current Effects of Unions] Heritage Foundation
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Labor Unions]]
[[Category:Corruption]]

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-18T21:56:57Z

Timber2: See Labour party

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Communism and Socialism does not criticism Mammon; it advocates the transfer of Mammon worship and Mammon's power to a clique of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 21:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, this is ☭Comrade GC☭ at an atheist website.

He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times and another administrator at the website blocked me after the website imposed arbitrary and authoritarian rules. I am referring to [[Essay: Why RationalWiki is dying|THIS WEBSITE]].

Of course, it isn't working. Why would anyone feel threatened by someone who resorts to deleting material after they prove themselves incapable of debate?

RobSmith, ask him why the Soviet Union collapsed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:It's a debate raging for years, whether there is some altruistic motive behind Marxism and hairsplitting over the degree to which atheistic and murderous ideologies can be criticized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 11:22, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::[[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], obviously you remain convinced that there is no difference between socialism and communism. While the USSR's communists failed, socialism most certainly hasn't. Millions of people throughout the world, who were not born into wealth, can attest to that fact. All political parties in Canada, Britain, and numerous other countries have had to modify their ideologies because of the success of socialist ideas, even the Republican Party. Recently, I was heartened to learn of Robert M. La Follette Sr., a Republican senator for Wisconsin (1906 to 1925), who supported child labour laws, social security, women’s suffrage, and other progressive reforms. He even ran for President in 1924 as a Progressive. But maybe it's Christianity that has been the influence on such Republicans rather than socialism?

::So it looks like the article will remain seriously flawed for now? I note, however, Conservapedia's strange enthusiasm (overall) for former communist [[Vladimir Putin]]. Actually though a communist, interestingly, he apparently was baptised.

:::[[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]], I fail to understand your comments. Are you suggesting that I am another person, with whom you've had a major conflict with elsewhere: "He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times"? Please clarify. I'd forgotten that the site mentioned even existed. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
::The difference between socialism and communism, ''per'' Marx's own writings, socialism is the phase of communism in a politically pluralist society prior to socialist gaining ascendency and outlawing political opposition. Ideologically, there is no difference. They are two sides of the same coin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 13:16, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::As I've already noted you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Are you a historian or political scientist? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::::See [[Labour party]] for a more balanced article on socialism in Britain.

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-17T20:29:43Z

Timber2: /* Christian socialism */ Really

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Communism and Socialism does not criticism Mammon; it advocates the transfer of Mammon worship and Mammon's power to a clique of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 21:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, this is ☭Comrade GC☭ at an atheist website.

He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times and another administrator at the website blocked me after the website imposed arbitrary and authoritarian rules. I am referring to [[Essay: Why RationalWiki is dying|THIS WEBSITE]].

Of course, it isn't working. Why would anyone feel threatened by someone who resorts to deleting material after they prove themselves incapable of debate?

RobSmith, ask him why the Soviet Union collapsed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:It's a debate raging for years, whether there is some altruistic motive behind Marxism and hairsplitting over the degree to which atheistic and murderous ideologies can be criticized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 11:22, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::[[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], obviously you remain convinced that there is no difference between socialism and communism. While the USSR's communists failed, socialism most certainly hasn't. Millions of people throughout the world, who were not born into wealth, can attest to that fact. All political parties in Canada, Britain, and numerous other countries have had to modify their ideologies because of the success of socialist ideas, even the Republican Party. Recently, I was heartened to learn of Robert M. La Follette Sr., a Republican senator for Wisconsin (1906 to 1925), who supported child labour laws, social security, women’s suffrage, and other progressive reforms. He even ran for President in 1924 as a Progressive. But maybe it's Christianity that has been the influence on such Republicans rather than socialism?

::So it looks like the article will remain seriously flawed for now? I note, however, Conservapedia's strange enthusiasm (overall) for former communist [[Vladimir Putin]]. Actually though a communist, interestingly, he apparently was baptised.

:::[[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]], I fail to understand your comments. Are you suggesting that I am another person, with whom you've had a major conflict with elsewhere: "He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times"? Please clarify. I'd forgotten that the site mentioned even existed. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
::The difference between socialism and communism, ''per'' Marx's own writings, socialism is the phase of communism in a politically pluralist society prior to socialist gaining ascendency and outlawing political opposition. Ideologically, there is no difference. They are two sides of the same coin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 13:16, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::As I've already noted you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Are you a historian or political scientist? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-17T16:05:02Z

Timber2: Final comment. You have the last word.

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Communism and Socialism does not criticism Mammon; it advocates the transfer of Mammon worship and Mammon's power to a clique of unelected technocrats and bureaucrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 21:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, this is ☭Comrade GC☭ at an atheist website.

He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times and another administrator at the website blocked me after the website imposed arbitrary and authoritarian rules. I am referring to [[Essay: Why RationalWiki is dying|THIS WEBSITE]].

Of course, it isn't working. Why would anyone feel threatened by someone who resorts to deleting material after they prove themselves incapable of debate?

RobSmith, ask him why the Soviet Union collapsed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:It's a debate raging for years, whether there is some altruistic motive behind Marxism and hairsplitting over the degree to which atheistic and murderous ideologies can be criticized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 11:22, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::[[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], obviously you remain convinced that there is no difference between socialism and communism. While the USSR's communists failed, socialism most certainly hasn't. Millions of people throughout the world, who were not born into wealth, can attest to that fact. All political parties in Canada, Britain, and numerous other countries have had to modify their ideologies because of the success of socialist ideas, even the Republican Party. Recently, I was heartened to learn of Robert M. La Follette Sr., a Republican senator for Wisconsin (1906 to 1925), who supported child labour laws, social security, women’s suffrage, and other progressive reforms. He even ran for President in 1924 as a Progressive. But maybe it's Christianity that has been the influence on such Republicans rather than socialism?

::So it looks like the article will remain seriously flawed for now? I note, however, Conservapedia's strange enthusiasm (overall) for former communist [[Vladimir Putin]]. Actually though a communist, interestingly, he apparently was baptised.

:::[[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]], I fail to understand your comments. Are you suggesting that I am another person, with whom you've had a major conflict with elsewhere: "He is merely posting this material in order to get a rise out of me after he deleted my material several times"? Please clarify. I'd forgotten that the site mentioned even existed. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-17T00:55:07Z

Timber2: /* Christian socialism */ You remain confused to my mind

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::The reference in an earlier discussion above, to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" further reveals your confusion. There use of socialist in USSR suggests that the Soviet also didn't differentiate between these two words, like many Americans. That isn't the case in the rest of the English speaking world, and I presume also many European countries. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-17T00:24:11Z

Timber2: /* Christian socialism */ Response

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Generally speaking, the claim so-called Christian socialism is based on the Book of Acts, "''they held all things in common"'' (the root word of communism). Christ did not speak these words, neither was it God-ordained, and soon failed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 19:39, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Communism would never have arisen but for those capitalists who worshipped Mammon. Capitalism is an essential, even God-given, creative and imaginative energy. Many capitalists have greatly enriched the world, the [https://www.bloomberg.org Bloomberg Philanthropies] and the [https://www.getty.edu/foundation/ Getty Foundation] come to mind. Sadly there are others who pervert their divine gift, and who, sadly, suffer a neurotic obsession with accumulating personal wealth. Christ preached love and sharing with others (not communism), and there are some amongst the wealthy that follow his example. We do share all things in common. Humility is another basic tenet of Christianity. Immoral, wealth obsessed individuals, however, believe that any sharing – and caring – is a sign of weakness. You still seem to be unable to separate socialism, especially Christian socialism, from communism. But I appreciate that it's hard changing a habit of a lifetime. [[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-16T23:25:56Z

Timber2: /* Christian socialism */ You don't really address my comment

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Interesting; would you support the statement, "all factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God"? [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dataclarifier#Factual.2C_documented_Church_history.2C_like_all_other_factual.2C_documented_history.2C_being_true.2C_is_part_of_the_Word_of_God.] Can this be interpreted to say that ''[[Das Kapital]]'' is a fifth gospel? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]

::A weird question. Possibly Marx, though ethnically Jewish, because he was educated in Germany was influenced by the Bible – I know little about him, having never read his biography, or ''Das Kapital''. Christian socialism is based on the New Testament, the word of Christ, though it may have been influenced by Marx's criticism of the immoral excesses of some capitalists: those who worship [[Mammon]]. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2020-05-16T22:30:41Z

Timber2: /* Christian socialism */ new section

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.{{unsigned}}
:Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does [[Marlene Dietrich]] mean in the movie, ''Judgement at Nuremberg'', when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/j/judgment-at-nuremburg-script-transcript.html I object that you are such a bourgeois]"? (beginning at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXh6uC_a0P0&feature=related about 5:01 in the youtube clip]) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc. ==

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

''"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. ''" The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, [[Hitler]]'s dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a [[Kriegswirtschaft]] wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the [[German Democratic Republic]] a democracy?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

==Please remove picture of Hitler==

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it==
I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. [[user:dsherman]]
::Adolf Hitler was the head of the National''' <big>Socialist</big>''' German Workers Party. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the '''''Democratic''' People's '''Republic''''' ''of Korea'', which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::::Germaine [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask [[Michelle Bachmann]]! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375491103635726.html I bring von Mises to the beach]. I hope that clarifies things. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

: But Cons. What do ''you'' think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of [[deceit|unsubstantiated]] [[claptrap|assertions]] instead? :) --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... ''"Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German '''Democratic''' Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's ''Democratic'' Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "'''People's''' Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways."'' '''Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others?''' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)
They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)
I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
:Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Good night, Cons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.

:::The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.

:::Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher [[John Locke]] (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his ''[http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm Second Treatise of Civil Government]'':

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the [http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm first chapter] of his ''Second Treatise''.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf] [http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html] - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:::You didn't ''explain'' anything, you merely ''quoted'' John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices.
Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. [[dsherman]]

==Fascism==
For now, I'm stripping out the over usage of the term [[fascism]] until the [[Far right]] page, and possibly a few others get cleaned up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 18 November 2018 (EST)

== Christian socialism ==

Americans have a tendency to confuse communism and socialism and to ignore the significant influence of [[Christian socialism|Christianity]] on socialism in Britain, former British colonies, and Europe. In fact socialism appears to be a synonym for communism for many Americans. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, unlike Britain, there was a real fear of revolution in America following the [[Russian Revolution|Russian Revolutions of 1917]]. There has been some discussion of this above, but the crude distortion remains. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-16T22:01:47Z

Timber2: RobSmith, I thought you should deal with this, as a major editor of this page.

I think this article should be titled '''Wuhan coronavirus''' instead, as the current title is the result of the fact that the WHO is owned by Red China, also see previous articles [[Wuhan coronavirus - Chinese Communist Party response]] and [[Global Wuhan coronavirus pandemic]]. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:You make a good point about the proper name of the virus. However, it can be counterproductive to overdo issues re: nomenclature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
::The Chinese had no problem with "Wuhan coronavirus" until they decided to blame America for it, which was about a week ago. (They were hoping that the virus would be seen as something local to Wuhan.) As far as the recent edits go, the opening of an article should of course correspond to its title. So long as the title of this article is "COVID-19," it can't open with "Wuhan virus." In addition, I don't think we should call it "China virus" or "CCP virus" anywhere. Yeah, there is German measles and Spanish flu. But that's not how viruses get named in the modern, globalized era. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Marxist head of the WHO, Covid-19 is the disease, not the virus. 2019-nCoV is the strain of virus. I disagree about CCP virus. It was the CCP, in collusion with the WHO, that politicized the name of the virus, and the CCP virus does not attach itself specifically to a location or nationality. It does attach itself to the political entity that created a global pandemic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 02:44, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Rep. Paul Gosar just tweeted a [https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1245378703833681920 poll] and the results were that "CCP virus" was the winner. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
==Chloroquine==
Watching a live broadcast right now that covers latest developments on chloroquine. The Dr. Zelenko stuff begins about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Gy9nPAQE0 14:23]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:46, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:The section on this drug looks to be out of date. See this recent advisory from Alberta Health Services [https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-rapid-response-report.pdf]. Some warning at least is presumably needed. However, another odd-sounding source Llama saliva may really help. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::I also found this warning from Health Canada [https://globalnews.ca/news/6869868/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-warning/]. It is to be regretted that it hasn't been the miracle that some hoped. And from France 24 [https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-studies-see-no-benefit-in-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-patients] --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

:::The FDA has now issued this warning: "FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems".<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref> --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::[[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] I thought that it would be better if you dealt with this, as a major editor of this page. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 18:01, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

==Zelenko==
Isolating Zelenko into a separate subheading may have the opposite effect of marginalizing Zelenko as a quack; rather it should be highlighted that Zelenko's treatment has been approved for expanded nationwide use. The treatment in mainstream. I suggest renaming the subhead and expanding the section to include information about about [[partisan]] anti-science Democrat governors ([[War on science]]} willing to let their people die. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Michelle Obama

2020-05-16T19:57:46Z

Timber2: Irrelevant trivia from an unreliable source to say the least

{{Officeholder
|name=Michelle Obama
|image=Michelle Obama.jpg
|party=Democratic
|spouse=[[Barack Obama]]
|religion=[[Protestant]]
|offices=

{{Officeholder/misc
|office=First Lady of the United States
|terms=January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
|preceded=[[Laura Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded= [[Melania Trump]]
}}
}}
'''Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama''' (born January 17, 1964) held the office of [[First Lady]] of the U.S. as the wife of [[Barack Obama]]. She is the first [[African American]] First Lady. As First Lady, she has repeatedly gone on extravagant vacations at enormous taxpayer expense, including a $100,000-per-day trip to [[Spain]] in the summer of 2010 to enjoy lavish accommodations.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301302/Michelle-Obama-lunches-Spains-royal-family-backlash-extravagant-holiday-continues-home.html</ref>

Michelle was born and raised on the south side of [[Chicago]]. She attended Whitney Young High School in 1981, later majoring in [[sociology]] and graduating ''[[cum laude]]'' at [[Princeton University]], and she then went on to obtain her [[Juris Doctor|J.D. degree]] at [[Harvard Law School]] in 1988. She is also sister to Craig Robinson, coach of the [[Oregon State University]]'s men's basketball team.

Michelle's parents are Fraser Robinson III (died in 1991) and his wife, Marian, who married in 1960. The ''New York Times'' wrote, in an article entitled "In First Lady’s Roots, a Complex Path From Slavery," that Michelle's ancestry includes slaves: "Melvinia Shields, the enslaved and illiterate young girl, and the unknown white man who impregnated her are the great-great-great-grandparents of Michelle Obama, the first lady ... the more complete map of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors — including the slave mother, white father and their biracial son, Dolphus T. Shields — connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency."<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/us/politics/08genealogy.html In First Lady’s Roots, a Complex Path From Slavery.]</ref> (Dolphus Shields was a very light skinned, church-going carpenter who could read, write and advance in an industrializing town.) Some of Michelle's relatives still reside in [[South Carolina]].
[[File:Robinson III and Marian.jpg|left|175px|Robinson III and Marian with their children.]]

Michelle was employed at the law firm [[Sidley Austin]] along with [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorist]] [[Bernardine Dohrn]],<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjY4YzdhMDBkZGQ3ZmU2MTUzYjdkMzc5ZjUzYmViZWM=#more ''Why Won’t Obama Talk About Columbia?],
The years he won’t discuss may explain the Ayers tie he keeps lying about.'' By Andrew C. McCarthy, [[National Review]], October 7, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection], Cliff Kincaid, America's Survival, Inc.</ref> where she met Barack Obama. In 1991 [[Valerie Jarrett]], Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, offered Michelle Robinson a job as Assistant to Mayor [[Richard Daley]].

She served as vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center. Michelle earned $317,000. per year as a board member dealing with community relations. She had resigned those positions to campaign for Barack.

Forming a domestic union in 1992, the Obama's have two daughters: Malia (born in 1998) and Natasha "Sasha" (born in 2001). She committed to campaign only two days out of the week during the election campaign in order to stay home with their children.

==Militant racism==
Michelle Obama attended Princeton University where she created her graduating thesis paper. Media requests to view the documents during Barack's presidential campaign were denied. The university stated suspiciously that it would be available to the public after the general election and for good reason. Michelle identifies with black militancy, utterly obsessed with race in [[America]] and her own blackness.<ref>[http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1182 Michelle Obama’s Early Militant Racism Revealed, RightPundits.com, February 25th, 2008]</ref>

{{cquote|I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.}}

{{cquote|Attending Princeton has probably forced [black alumni] to compete intellectually with Whites more than with Blacks and, thus, they have probably become more familiar with Whites intellectually, but in other activities they are likely to have gained familiarity with Whites if they did not spend time with Whites in other activities besides intellectual ones.}}

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world. Her attitude explains the very reason she felt comfortable attending Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]]'s black liberation theology church for twenty years. Read the full thesis here: [https://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf Part 1] [https://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_26-501.pdf Part 2] [https://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_51-751.pdf Part 3] [http://dyn.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_76-981.pdf Part 4]

Always eager to remind the world how racist America was and is, she told students while vacationing in [[China]] "Many decades ago, there were actually laws in America that allowed discrimination against black people like me, who are a minority in the United States." <ref>[https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-there-were-actually-laws-america-allowed-discrimination-against-black-people-me_785997.html Michelle: 'There Were Actually Laws in America that Allowed Discrimination Against Black People Like Me', WeeklyStandard.com, March 25, 2014]</ref>

In a 2014 speech to graduating Topeka Kansas high school students on the 60th anniversary of ''Brown v. Board of Education'', Michelle warned that [[segregation]] is on the rise, “We know that today in America, too many folks are still stopped on the street because of the color of their skin..." <ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/16/michelle-obama-to-students-brown-v-board-of-education-is-still-being-decided-every-single-day/ Michelle Obama to Students: Brown V. Board of Education Is ‘Still Being Decided Every Single Day’, TheBlaze.com, March 16, 2014]</ref>

==Ties to anti-Semitism==
While attending Princeton University, Michelle Obama joined two student groups, the Organization of Black Unity and the Third World Center. These groups were pro-Palestinian and had invited guest speaker Hassan Rahman of the [[PLO]] to the dismay of Jewish students. Rahman's comments were inflammatory, "reiterated the PLO’s position that the Palestinians deserve a homeland and that they are entitled to use terrorism [against Israel] to achieve their goal..." <ref>[https://dailycaller.com/2013/10/28/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal-executive-belonged-to-student-group-at-princeton-that-hosted-pro-terrorist-speaker/#ixzz2jhb5Valn Michelle Obama and CGI Federal executive belonged to student group at Princeton that hosted pro-terrorist speaker, DailyCaller.com, 10-28-2013]</ref>

Michelle Obama wanted to honor the [[Antiamericanism|antiamerican]] and [[Antisemitism|antisemitc]] author [[Samira Ibrahim]]. Ibrahim had cited [[Adolf Hitler]] and was happy about the terrorist attacks on Israelis.<ref>http://nation.foxnews.com/samira-ibrahim/2013/03/07/michelle-obama-john-kerry-honor-author-anti-semitic-tweets</ref>

==University of Chicago Medical Center==
While Michelle was executive vice-president at the medical center, she connected with [[David Axelrod]]'s company "ASK Public Strategies" and along with Valerie Jarrett, promoted the Urban Health Initiative. The hospital gave their approval. Some are calling for an investigation because the result was a patient-dumping scheme to avoid dealing with Medicare/Medicaid patients.<ref>[https://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/23/video-did-michelle-obama-start-a-patient-dumping-program/ Video: Did Michelle Obama start a patient-dumping program? Hotair.com, July 23, 2009]</ref> In March 2009, the ''[[American Thinker]]'' wrote:
{{cquote|Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP's president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statement suggesting that the initiative comes "dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."<ref>https://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html</ref>}}

In September 2011 it was revealed that a close friend, advisor and donor of Barack Obama, Chicago's Dr. Eric Whitaker is facing financial fraud charges. Dr. Whitaker left his job in the Illinois Department of Public Health in 2007 to work with Michelle Obama as executive vice president at University of Chicago Medical Center.<ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/sep/close-obama-pal-embroiled-grant-fraud-scandal Close Obama Pal Embroiled In Grant Fraud Scandal, Judicial Watch, September 22, 2011]</ref>

==Support for late-term abortions==
Michelle Obama wrote a fund-raising letter during her partner's 2004 US Senate campaign claiming the [[partial birth abortion]] ban "is clearly unconstitutional" and "a flawed law." <ref>[http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/michelle_obamas.html Michelle Obama's partial birth abortion fund-raising letter, JillStanek.com, May 8, 2008]</ref> A late trimester abortion of a woman's pregnancy involves the jamming of scissors into the back of a child's head, Michelle describes it as "legitimate" medicine.

==Quotes while campaigning==
* "Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." - 2008

* '''"For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."''' <ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html</ref><ref>https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331288,00.html</ref>

*"Before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

*"There is still a lot of hard work that we as a country need to do. They can't look to any one individual, whether it's Barack or it's the next new hope that's going to appear to be that '''savior'''."

*"No matter what the outcome is, we have to keep our eyes on the bigger picture. We need some kind of change. We can't cut off our noses to spite our faces."

*"We have this window of opportunity; we have a chance to make something real happen. Something possible happen, to live beyond our fear, think about that, and help us. Help lift us up, help us fight this fight to change, - transform - this country in a fundamental way. This chance won't come around again."

*"Millions of Americans who know that Barack understands their dreams; that Barack will fight for people like them; and that Barack will finally bring the change we need."

*"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service."

*"We had a miraculous victory in Iowa. '''Ain't no black people in Iowa!''' Something big, something new is happening. Let's build the future we all know is possible. Let's show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now."

==Michelle Obama and liberal elitism==

''For more information please see:'' [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]] ''and also see'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]]

In 2008, the Huffington Post was reported that Michelle Obama wore $540 sneakers to a food bank.
<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/michelle-obama-wears-silv_n_193138.html</ref>

[[Powerline]] offers the following criticism of Michelle Obama:
{{cquote|She says that she and Barack were born to parents of modest means, not with "silver spoons" in their mouths. Nobody knows the trouble they've seen. The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at [[Princeton]] and her law school education at [[Harvard]] has scarred her. It remains a motif of her stump speech. No one is accorded a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any of the financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/05/020456.php</ref>}}

Michelle Obama's [[liberal elite|liberal elitism]] is not surprising given the [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|high degree of liberal elitism that Barack Obama continually displays]].

===Vacationing abuse on the taxpayers credit card===
While the average American suffers under Obamanomics of low wages, no job growth, higher energy costs and higher food prices, Michelle Obama is living the high life with White House parties and tens of millions of dollars worth of vacations.

Michelle Obama has taken 17 vacations since 2008 and plans to take her 18th vacation in [[Las Vegas]].<ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/29/its-good-to-be-queen-mooch-heads-to-las-vegas-for-yet-another-vacation/ It’s Good To Be Queen: Mooch Heads To Las Vegas For Yet Another Vacation, WeaselZippers.us, March 29, 2012]</ref>

Other lavish vacations include:
*Honolulu, Hawaii
*Aspen, Colorado
*Martha's Vineyard
*Las Vegas
*Africa
*Spain
*Mexico
*Ireland
*China

===Harvey Weinstein===
At an event organized by convicted [[rape|rapist]] and Democrat megadonor, [[Harvey Weinstein]], Michelle had this to say about the prominent liberal [[activist]] and donor to [[leftwing]] causes:
{{quotebox|I want to start by thanking Harvey Weinstein for organizing this amazing day. This is possible because of Harvey. He is a wonderful human being, a good friend, and just a powerhouse. And the fact that he and his team took the time to make this happen for all of you should say something, not about me or about this place, but about you all, right? Everybody! We are here because of you!<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdB1XAVPC0</ref>}}
[[Whoopi Goldberg]] was also in attendance.

==Fashion disaster==

Michelle has been consistently ridiculed for her fashion choices. Since the age of television, the press has been keen to report on the First Lady's appearance by noting regal, stylish and elegant dresses she wears. The opposite can be said of Michelle. She makes headlines for sleeveless gowns, hideous color matching, $500 sneakers, always wearing torso belts, and exiting [[Air Force One]] in shorts and a T-shirt, among others. She gives the impression that she is trying to be a Diva, but in reality, she is far from being a trend-setter. In fact, reviews always return negative statements such as gaudy, tacky, and unbecoming of the role the First Lady inherits.<ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0226-sleeveless-michelle-obafeb26,0,3657652.story Some harrumph over Michelle Obama's sleeveless dress, Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://www.thehotjoints.com/2009/06/16/fashion-designers-keep-pretending-michelle-obama-has-style/ Fashion Designers Keep Pretending Michelle Obama Has Style, thehotjoints.com, JUNE 16, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huggett/090611 Michelle Obama: First Lady of fashion victims, RenewAmerica.com, June 11, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article6470675.ece Michelle Obama's Abbey outfit: stacked like a wedding cake – but nice colours, The Times, June 10, 2009]</ref>

It was noted in April 2011 that Michelle has already replaced her first two fashion stylists.<ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2011/04/michelle_obama_may_have_switch.html Michelle Obama May Have Switched Stylists Again, NYMag.com, April 13, 2011]</ref>

==First grandmother==
Michelle's mother moved into the [[White House]] to help raise her grandchildren.

==Bringing the Olympics to Chicago==
The First Lady, along with [[Oprah Winfrey]], traveled to [[Copenhagen]] to support Barack Obama's pitch for the Olympics in Chicago. She claimed that the trip was a sacrifice to visit for a few days.<ref>[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Michelle-Obama-Its-a-sacrifice-to-travel-to-Europe-to-pitch-for-the-Olympics--For-Oprah-and-the-president-too--But-were-doing-it-for-the-kids-62928957.html Michelle Obama: It's a 'sacrifice' to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I'm doing it for the kids, Washington Examiner, September 30, 2009]</ref> She would give a speech to Olympic officials saying, "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection." <ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/michelle.obama.olympics/ Michelle Obama steals the show in Copenhagen, CNN, October 2, 2009]</ref> It was noted that either she was lying or that it was a strange occurrence for her to be sitting on her dad's lap, since she was 20 years old when Carl Lewis first competed in the Olympics.<ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/quote-of-the-day-the-first-ladys-tall-olympic-tale/ tall tale of the day: The First Lady’s weird Olympic memory, Michelle Malkin, October 2, 2009]</ref>

==Healthy eating initiative==

''See also:'' [[Overweight Obama administration officials]]

Michelle made the liberal media news cycle by promoting healthy eating from the White House garden. The food network filmed “Iron Chef America" showcasing Michelle's healthy food, cooking five dishes using the secret ingredient: produce from the [[White House]] garden. The two-hour special showed the chefs picking sweet potatoes, broccoli, fennel and tomatillos from the White House garden. An issue came to light that the foods were actually prepared in [[New York City]], speculating that the entire show was just staged to look like produce from her garden.<ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/14/everythings-staged-michelle-obamas-garden-food-was-fake/ Everything’s staged: Michelle Obama’s garden food was fake, Michelle Malkin, January 14, 2010]</ref> Also, her campaign against obesity has not stopped her and Barack from [http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_hypocrisy#The_Obamas_and_obesity taking their children out for ice cream while on vacation].

In Michelle Obama's first interview on the [[Fox News]] network, she would tout her responsible-eating initiative for kids. She would highlight the Obama Administration's $400 million Healthy Food Financing Initiative and her "Let's Move" campaign, which educates the danger of obese children and healthy eating.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61I5E820100219 U.S. launches program to end "food deserts", February 19, 2010]</ref> She would tie the promises of the program to saying it would create 5000 jobs and pointed out that childhood obesity is a threat to national security. She urges children and parents to just skip "food desserts".

She would promote healthy eating initiatives for schools. Barack sought and passed legislation costing more than $4 billion. It is a horrible example of nanny state politics with draconian requirements on what can or cannot be sold at school bake sales and at the school cafeteria.

Psychiatrist Keith Ablow called Michelle too fat to preach about nutrition, "And how well could she be eating? She needs to drop a few", and "We’re taking nutrition advice from who?" <ref>[https://dailycaller.com/2014/08/13/fox-news-doc-calls-michelle-obama-too-fat-to-preach-about-nutrition-video/#ixzz3AP4fs56N Below The Belt? Fox News Doc Calls Michelle Obama Too Fat To Preach About Nutrition [VIDEO], DailyCaller.com, August 13th]</ref>

===Healthy eating failure===

Michelle's proposals have destroyed the lunch program of this nation's schools. The children refuse to eat what was recommended. The children have stopped eating school lunch. Children go hungry due to the small size portions. School districts have suffered enormous financial losses.

In 2014, Republicans in Congress have decided to strip her signature program. She stated that was 'unacceptable'. What wasn't unacceptable was the lunch her kids are fed in a private school. The prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., serves the following to students,<ref>[http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/141806-public-school-kids-eat-healthy-lunches-obama-girls-dine-lunches-designed-chefs/ While Public School Kids Eat ‘Healthy Lunches,’ Washington Elites Served Meatball Subs, Ice Cream, ijreview.com, may 27, 2014]</ref>

*BBQ wings
*Meatball subs
*Ice Cream
*Crusted tilapia
*Herb roasted chicken
*Pesto cream & garden-fresh marinara sauce
*Roasted edamame & Shitake mushrooms
*BBQ sliders
*Pesto pasta
*All-natural rosemary chicken
*All-natural beef nachos
*Baked three-cheese lasagna
*Pepperoni flatbread pizza

=== Michelle Obama greeted an overweight U.S. Surgeon General for a MyPlate initiative ===

''See also:'' [[Overweight Obama administration officials]]

In June 2011, Michelle Obama greeted an overweight U.S. Surgeon General Regina M. Benjamin as they introduce the MyPlate initiative.<ref>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/06/06/food_guide_efforts_are_a_waste/</ref>

=== Barack and Michelle Obama and a burger joint ===

In August 2011, [[Barack Obama]] and his staff ate a high-calorie meal at a burger joint. Obama said concerning his partner, "Michelle eats here all the time".<ref>https://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-celebrates-debt-deal-with-1700-calorie-staff-lunch-at-burger-joint/</ref>

==First Lady's staff of 22==
American taxpayers are shelling out a staggering total of $1,591,200 annually for the First Lady's 22 member personal staff.<ref>[http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-big-is-michelle-obamas-staffs-budget/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=502f59131d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email How Big Is Michelle Obama’s Staff’s Budget?, WesternJournalism.com, March 27, 2012]</ref>

*$172,200 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
*$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
*Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL OFFICE)
*$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
*$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
*Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
*Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY) <ref>[http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 First Lady requires more than twenty attendants] [[Canadian Free Press]], July 7, 2009</ref>

===Staff turnover rate===
In just under three years, she has gone through three chiefs of staff, three secretaries, two communication directors and a press secretary.<ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/stories/expert-blames-michelle-os-staff-turnover-on-race/ EXPERT BLAMES MICHELLE O’S STAFF TURNOVER ON….RACE?, THEBLAZE, May 27, 2011]</ref>

==Legacy==

Mrs. Obama gave an interview to [[Oprah Winfrey]] where she petulantly said that Americans are like little children in need of constant minding:

:Past first ladies have provided similar end-of-term interviews, in which they tend to display both astonishment and relief that it’s all over, coupled with the proper magnanimity and graciousness toward the next family to reside in the White House. Yet, this time was different. Far from feel-good, Mrs. Obama seemed more like a frustrated mother lamenting the rebelliousness of her growing child.<ref> [https://www.nationalreview.com/article/443572/michelle-obama-first-lady-oprah-winfrey-interview-voters-children Mrs. Obama, We Are Not Your Kids] - ''National Review''</ref>

Compared to the succeeding First Lady, [[Melania Trump]], the [[mainstream media]] was very biased in favor of Michelle Obama.<ref>Rogan, Tom (July 13, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-tale-of-two-first-ladies-and-troubling-media-bias/article/2628599 A tale of two first ladies and troubling media bias]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 13, 2017.</ref>

== External links ==

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1k3lmCE3HI America is Hell, compilation of Michelle Obama speeches]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kiGjE4_k0jI Michelle's Last Four Years - Lest We Forget]
*[http://www.life-in-spite-of-ms.com/fraserrobinson.html Fraser Robinson III ~ Michelle Obama's Father]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Michelle}}
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Men]]

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-16T17:52:03Z

Timber2: /* Chloroquine */ Sorry

I think this article should be titled '''Wuhan coronavirus''' instead, as the current title is the result of the fact that the WHO is owned by Red China, also see previous articles [[Wuhan coronavirus - Chinese Communist Party response]] and [[Global Wuhan coronavirus pandemic]]. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:You make a good point about the proper name of the virus. However, it can be counterproductive to overdo issues re: nomenclature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
::The Chinese had no problem with "Wuhan coronavirus" until they decided to blame America for it, which was about a week ago. (They were hoping that the virus would be seen as something local to Wuhan.) As far as the recent edits go, the opening of an article should of course correspond to its title. So long as the title of this article is "COVID-19," it can't open with "Wuhan virus." In addition, I don't think we should call it "China virus" or "CCP virus" anywhere. Yeah, there is German measles and Spanish flu. But that's not how viruses get named in the modern, globalized era. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Marxist head of the WHO, Covid-19 is the disease, not the virus. 2019-nCoV is the strain of virus. I disagree about CCP virus. It was the CCP, in collusion with the WHO, that politicized the name of the virus, and the CCP virus does not attach itself specifically to a location or nationality. It does attach itself to the political entity that created a global pandemic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 02:44, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Rep. Paul Gosar just tweeted a [https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1245378703833681920 poll] and the results were that "CCP virus" was the winner. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
==Chloroquine==
Watching a live broadcast right now that covers latest developments on chloroquine. The Dr. Zelenko stuff begins about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Gy9nPAQE0 14:23]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:46, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:The section on this drug looks to be out of date. See this recent advisory from Alberta Health Services [https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-rapid-response-report.pdf]. Some warning at least is presumably needed. However, another odd-sounding source Llama saliva may really help. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::I also found this warning from Health Canada [https://globalnews.ca/news/6869868/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-warning/]. It is to be regretted that it hasn't been the miracle that some hoped. And from France 24 [https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-studies-see-no-benefit-in-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-patients] --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

:::The FDA has now issued this warning: "FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems".<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration]</ref> --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

==Zelenko==
Isolating Zelenko into a separate subheading may have the opposite effect of marginalizing Zelenko as a quack; rather it should be highlighted that Zelenko's treatment has been approved for expanded nationwide use. The treatment in mainstream. I suggest renaming the subhead and expanding the section to include information about about [[partisan]] anti-science Democrat governors ([[War on science]]} willing to let their people die. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-16T17:18:18Z

Timber2: Minor correction

I think this article should be titled '''Wuhan coronavirus''' instead, as the current title is the result of the fact that the WHO is owned by Red China, also see previous articles [[Wuhan coronavirus - Chinese Communist Party response]] and [[Global Wuhan coronavirus pandemic]]. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:You make a good point about the proper name of the virus. However, it can be counterproductive to overdo issues re: nomenclature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
::The Chinese had no problem with "Wuhan coronavirus" until they decided to blame America for it, which was about a week ago. (They were hoping that the virus would be seen as something local to Wuhan.) As far as the recent edits go, the opening of an article should of course correspond to its title. So long as the title of this article is "COVID-19," it can't open with "Wuhan virus." In addition, I don't think we should call it "China virus" or "CCP virus" anywhere. Yeah, there is German measles and Spanish flu. But that's not how viruses get named in the modern, globalized era. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Marxist head of the WHO, Covid-19 is the disease, not the virus. 2019-nCoV is the strain of virus. I disagree about CCP virus. It was the CCP, in collusion with the WHO, that politicized the name of the virus, and the CCP virus does not attach itself specifically to a location or nationality. It does attach itself to the political entity that created a global pandemic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 02:44, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Rep. Paul Gosar just tweeted a [https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1245378703833681920 poll] and the results were that "CCP virus" was the winner. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
==Chloroquine==
Watching a live broadcast right now that covers latest developments on chloroquine. The Dr. Zelenko stuff begins about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Gy9nPAQE0 14:23]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:46, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:The section on this drug looks to be out of date. See this recent advisory from Alberta Health Services [https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-rapid-response-report.pdf]. Some warning at least is presumably needed. However, another odd-sounding source Llama saliva may really help. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::I also found this warning from Health Canada [https://globalnews.ca/news/6869868/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-warning/]. It is to be regretted that it hasn't been the miracle that some hoped. And from France 24 [https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-studies-see-no-benefit-in-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-patients] --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

:::The FDA has now issued this warning: "FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems".<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration</ref> --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 13:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

==Zelenko==
Isolating Zelenko into a separate subheading may have the opposite effect of marginalizing Zelenko as a quack; rather it should be highlighted that Zelenko's treatment has been approved for expanded nationwide use. The treatment in mainstream. I suggest renaming the subhead and expanding the section to include information about about [[partisan]] anti-science Democrat governors ([[War on science]]} willing to let their people die. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-16T17:16:37Z

Timber2: /* Chloroquine */ FDA has updated its information

I think this article should be titled '''Wuhan coronavirus''' instead, as the current title is the result of the fact that the WHO is owned by Red China, also see previous articles [[Wuhan coronavirus - Chinese Communist Party response]] and [[Global Wuhan coronavirus pandemic]]. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:You make a good point about the proper name of the virus. However, it can be counterproductive to overdo issues re: nomenclature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
::The Chinese had no problem with "Wuhan coronavirus" until they decided to blame America for it, which was about a week ago. (They were hoping that the virus would be seen as something local to Wuhan.) As far as the recent edits go, the opening of an article should of course correspond to its title. So long as the title of this article is "COVID-19," it can't open with "Wuhan virus." In addition, I don't think we should call it "China virus" or "CCP virus" anywhere. Yeah, there is German measles and Spanish flu. But that's not how viruses get named in the modern, globalized era. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Marxist head of the WHO, Covid-19 is the disease, not the virus. 2019-nCoV is the strain of virus. I disagree about CCP virus. It was the CCP, in collusion with the WHO, that politicized the name of the virus, and the CCP virus does not attach itself specifically to a location or nationality. It does attach itself to the political entity that created a global pandemic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 02:44, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Rep. Paul Gosar just tweeted a [https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1245378703833681920 poll] and the results were that "CCP virus" was the winner. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
==Chloroquine==
Watching a live broadcast right now that covers latest developments on chloroquine. The Dr. Zelenko stuff begins about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Gy9nPAQE0 14:23]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:46, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:The section on this drug looks to be out of date. See this recent advisory from Alberta Health Services [https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-rapid-response-report.pdf]. Some warning at least is presumably needed. However, another odd-sounding source Llama saliva may really help. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::I also found this warning from Health Canada [https://globalnews.ca/news/6869868/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-warning/]. It is to be regretted that it hasn't been the miracle that some hoped. And from France 24 [https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-studies-see-no-benefit-in-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-patients] --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

:::The FDA has now issued this warning: "FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems".<ref>[https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or US Food and Drug Administration</re> --~~~~

==Zelenko==
Isolating Zelenko into a separate subheading may have the opposite effect of marginalizing Zelenko as a quack; rather it should be highlighted that Zelenko's treatment has been approved for expanded nationwide use. The treatment in mainstream. I suggest renaming the subhead and expanding the section to include information about about [[partisan]] anti-science Democrat governors ([[War on science]]} willing to let their people die. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-15T20:44:37Z

Timber2: /* Chloroquine */ Other recent reports

I think this article should be titled '''Wuhan coronavirus''' instead, as the current title is the result of the fact that the WHO is owned by Red China, also see previous articles [[Wuhan coronavirus - Chinese Communist Party response]] and [[Global Wuhan coronavirus pandemic]]. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:You make a good point about the proper name of the virus. However, it can be counterproductive to overdo issues re: nomenclature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
::The Chinese had no problem with "Wuhan coronavirus" until they decided to blame America for it, which was about a week ago. (They were hoping that the virus would be seen as something local to Wuhan.) As far as the recent edits go, the opening of an article should of course correspond to its title. So long as the title of this article is "COVID-19," it can't open with "Wuhan virus." In addition, I don't think we should call it "China virus" or "CCP virus" anywhere. Yeah, there is German measles and Spanish flu. But that's not how viruses get named in the modern, globalized era. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Marxist head of the WHO, Covid-19 is the disease, not the virus. 2019-nCoV is the strain of virus. I disagree about CCP virus. It was the CCP, in collusion with the WHO, that politicized the name of the virus, and the CCP virus does not attach itself specifically to a location or nationality. It does attach itself to the political entity that created a global pandemic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 02:44, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Rep. Paul Gosar just tweeted a [https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar/status/1245378703833681920 poll] and the results were that "CCP virus" was the winner. [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
==Chloroquine==
Watching a live broadcast right now that covers latest developments on chloroquine. The Dr. Zelenko stuff begins about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Gy9nPAQE0 14:23]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:46, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

:The section on this drug looks to be out of date. See this recent advisory from Alberta Health Services [https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-rapid-response-report.pdf]. Some warning at least is presumably needed. However, another odd-sounding source Llama saliva may really help. --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::I also found this warning from Health Canada [https://globalnews.ca/news/6869868/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-warning/]. It is to be regretted that it hasn't been the miracle that some hoped. And from France 24 [https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-studies-see-no-benefit-in-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19-patients] --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 16:44, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

==Zelenko==
Isolating Zelenko into a separate subheading may have the opposite effect of marginalizing Zelenko as a quack; rather it should be highlighted that Zelenko's treatment has been approved for expanded nationwide use. The treatment in mainstream. I suggest renaming the subhead and expanding the section to include information about about [[partisan]] anti-science Democrat governors ([[War on science]]} willing to let their people die. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Talk:COVID-19

2020-05-15T20:31:25Z

Timber2: /* Chloroquine */ Needs updating

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:54:34Z

Timber2: Revised

Ranking presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:52:49Z

Timber2: /* See also */ Duplication

Ranking presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:51:13Z

Timber2: New article from old material in Leftist rankings of Presidents of US

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:45:30Z

Timber2: Citation completed

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:40:34Z

Timber2: /* See also */ Correction

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:39:19Z

Timber2: /* See also */ Correction

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:37:39Z

Timber2: Balance

Academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:34:55Z

Timber2: Article has been replaced because it includes non-academics

Ranking the presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:26:56Z

Timber2: Revised article

A majority of Republicans (53%) think Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. But there is one GOP President since Lincoln whom Republicans rate higher than Trump: A majority (59%) of Republicans believe Ronald Reagan was a better president than the current incumbent.<ref>https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/02/greatest-republican-president "Trump better than Lincoln? Republicans think so" In: Economist/YouGov Poll Politics & current affairs December 02, 2019]</ref> Neil, a Republican from Oregon, said that Trump “supersedes” Lincoln, because “Lincoln only freed the slaves,” he said during a call to the network Wednesday. “Yes, that’s a big thing. But what Trump is doing is far greater.”<ref> [ Deanna Paul "Trump greater than Lincoln? Republicans polled said yes in a party Lincoln wouldn’t recognize. ''Wahington Post'', Dec. 5, 2019]</ref>

On the other hand in a survey by nearly 100 historians and biographers Abraham Lincoln was voted the best US president. This survey rated 43 US presidents on "10 qualities of presidential leadership".
Other notable names "include George Washington at No. 2, Thomas Jefferson at No. 7, and Barack Obama at No. 12". As the survey is undertaken "after a sitting president's term", President Donald Trump was excluded.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2 , Rachel Gillett and Allana Akhtar "These are the top 25 US presidents (and why you won't find Trump on the list)" ''Business Insider'' Jul 4, 2019]</ref> According to American political scientists of all political persuasions, the following were considered the best American Presidents in 2018:<ref>Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin S. Vaughn "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?" ''NY Times, Feb. 19, 2018</ref>

*1. [[Abraham Lincoln]]

*2. [[George Washington]]

*3. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt ]]

*4. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]

*5. [[Thomas Jefferson]]

*6. [[Harry Truman]]

*7. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]

*8. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barak Obama]]

*8. [[Bill Clinton]]

*9. [[Ronald Reagan]]

*9. [[Andrew Jackson]]

*10. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

It must be noted that a majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2 RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists Brennan Weiss" ''Business Inside'', Feb 18, 2019,]</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Historical rankings of presidents of the United States]]
*[[Donald Trump achievements: Immigration and border security]]
*[[Donald Trump achievements: Miscellaneous achievements]]

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:15:31Z

Timber2: Minor copy edit

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-15T01:14:01Z

Timber2: Para

A majority of Republicans (53%) think Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. But there is one GOP President since Lincoln whom Republicans rate higher than Trump: A majority (59%) of Republicans believe Ronald Reagan was a better president than the current incumbent.<ref>https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/02/greatest-republican-president "Trump better than Lincoln? Republicans think so" In: Economist/YouGov Poll Politics & current affairs December 02, 2019]</ref> Neil, a Republican from Oregon, said that Trump “supersedes” Lincoln, because “Lincoln only freed the slaves,” he said during a call to the network Wednesday. “Yes, that’s a big thing. But what Trump is doing is far greater.”<ref> [ Deanna Paul "Trump greater than Lincoln? Republicans polled said yes in a party Lincoln wouldn’t recognize. ''Wahington Post'', Dec. 5, 2019]</ref>

On the other hand in a survey by nearly 100 historians and biographers Abraham Lincoln was voted the best US president. This survey rated 43 US presidents on "10 qualities of presidential leadership".
Other notable names "include George Washington at No. 2, Thomas Jefferson at No. 7, and Barack Obama at No. 12". As the survey is undertaken "after a sitting president's term", President Donald Trump was excluded.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2 , Rachel Gillett and Allana Akhtar "These are the top 25 US presidents (and why you won't find Trump on the list)" ''Business Insider'' Jul 4, 2019]</ref> According to American political scientists of all political persuasions, the following were considered the best American Presidents in 2018:<ref>Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin S. Vaughn "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?" ''NY Times, Feb. 19, 2018</ref> It must be noted that a majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2 RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists Brennan Weiss" ''Business Inside'', Feb 18, 2019,]</ref>

*1. [[Abraham Lincoln]]

*2. [[George Washington]]

*3. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt ]]

*4. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]

*5. [[Thomas Jefferson]]

*6. [[Harry Truman]]

*7. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]

*8. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barak Obama]]

*8. [[Bill Clinton]]

*9. [[Ronald Reagan]]

*9. [[Andrew Jackson]]

*10. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Historical rankings of presidents of the United States]]
*[[Donald Trump achievements: Immigration and border security]]
*[[Donald Trump achievements: Miscellaneous achievements]]

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-14T21:06:46Z

Timber2: /* See also */ Addition

A majority of Republicans (53%) think Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. But there is one GOP President since Lincoln whom Republicans rate higher than Trump: A majority (59%) of Republicans believe Ronald Reagan was a better president than the current incumbent.<ref>https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/02/greatest-republican-president "Trump better than Lincoln? Republicans think so" In: Economist/YouGov Poll Politics & current affairs December 02, 2019]</ref> Neil, a Republican from Oregon, said that Trump “supersedes” Lincoln, because “Lincoln only freed the slaves,” he said during a call to the network Wednesday. “Yes, that’s a big thing. But what Trump is doing is far greater.”<ref> [ Deanna Paul "Trump greater than Lincoln? Republicans polled said yes in a party Lincoln wouldn’t recognize. ''Wahington Post'', Dec. 5, 2019]</ref>

On the other hand in a survey by nearly 100 historians and biographers Abraham Lincoln was voted the best US president. This survey rated 43 US presidents on "10 qualities of presidential leadership".
Other notable names "include George Washington at No. 2, Thomas Jefferson at No. 7, and Barack Obama at No. 12". As the survey is undertaken "after a sitting president's term", President Donald Trump was excluded.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2 , Rachel Gillett and Allana Akhtar "These are the top 25 US presidents (and why you won't find Trump on the list)" ''Business Insider'' Jul 4, 2019]</ref> According to American political scientists of all political persuasions, the following were considered the best American Presidents in 2018:<ref>Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin S. Vaughn "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?" ''NY Times, Feb. 19, 2018</ref>

It must be noted that a majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2 RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists Brennan Weiss" ''Business Inside'', Feb 18, 2019,]</ref>

*1. [[Abraham Lincoln]]

*2. [[George Washington]]

*3. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt ]]

*4. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]

*5. [[Thomas Jefferson]]

*6. [[Harry Truman]]

*7. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]

*8. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barak Obama]]

*8. [[Bill Clinton]]

*9. [[Ronald Reagan]]

*9. [[Andrew Jackson]]

*10. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Historical rankings of presidents of the United States]]
*[[Donald Trump achievements: Immigration and border security]]
*[[Donald Trump achievements: Miscellaneous achievements]]

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-14T21:04:14Z

Timber2: /* See also */ Addition

A majority of Republicans (53%) think Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. But there is one GOP President since Lincoln whom Republicans rate higher than Trump: A majority (59%) of Republicans believe Ronald Reagan was a better president than the current incumbent.<ref>https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/02/greatest-republican-president "Trump better than Lincoln? Republicans think so" In: Economist/YouGov Poll Politics & current affairs December 02, 2019]</ref> Neil, a Republican from Oregon, said that Trump “supersedes” Lincoln, because “Lincoln only freed the slaves,” he said during a call to the network Wednesday. “Yes, that’s a big thing. But what Trump is doing is far greater.”<ref> [ Deanna Paul "Trump greater than Lincoln? Republicans polled said yes in a party Lincoln wouldn’t recognize. ''Wahington Post'', Dec. 5, 2019]</ref>

On the other hand in a survey by nearly 100 historians and biographers Abraham Lincoln was voted the best US president. This survey rated 43 US presidents on "10 qualities of presidential leadership".
Other notable names "include George Washington at No. 2, Thomas Jefferson at No. 7, and Barack Obama at No. 12". As the survey is undertaken "after a sitting president's term", President Donald Trump was excluded.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2 , Rachel Gillett and Allana Akhtar "These are the top 25 US presidents (and why you won't find Trump on the list)" ''Business Insider'' Jul 4, 2019]</ref> According to American political scientists of all political persuasions, the following were considered the best American Presidents in 2018:<ref>Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin S. Vaughn "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?" ''NY Times, Feb. 19, 2018</ref>

It must be noted that a majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2 RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists Brennan Weiss" ''Business Inside'', Feb 18, 2019,]</ref>

*1. [[Abraham Lincoln]]

*2. [[George Washington]]

*3. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt ]]

*4. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]

*5. [[Thomas Jefferson]]

*6. [[Harry Truman]]

*7. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]

*8. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barak Obama]]

*8. [[Bill Clinton]]

*9. [[Ronald Reagan]]

*9. [[Andrew Jackson]]

*10. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Historical rankings of presidents of the United States]]
*[[Donald Trump achievements: Immigration and border security]]

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-14T21:01:39Z

Timber2: See also added

A majority of Republicans (53%) think Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. But there is one GOP President since Lincoln whom Republicans rate higher than Trump: A majority (59%) of Republicans believe Ronald Reagan was a better president than the current incumbent.<ref>https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/02/greatest-republican-president "Trump better than Lincoln? Republicans think so" In: Economist/YouGov Poll Politics & current affairs December 02, 2019]</ref> Neil, a Republican from Oregon, said that Trump “supersedes” Lincoln, because “Lincoln only freed the slaves,” he said during a call to the network Wednesday. “Yes, that’s a big thing. But what Trump is doing is far greater.”<ref> [ Deanna Paul "Trump greater than Lincoln? Republicans polled said yes in a party Lincoln wouldn’t recognize. ''Wahington Post'', Dec. 5, 2019]</ref>

On the other hand in a survey by nearly 100 historians and biographers Abraham Lincoln was voted the best US president. This survey rated 43 US presidents on "10 qualities of presidential leadership".
Other notable names "include George Washington at No. 2, Thomas Jefferson at No. 7, and Barack Obama at No. 12". As the survey is undertaken "after a sitting president's term", President Donald Trump was excluded.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2 , Rachel Gillett and Allana Akhtar "These are the top 25 US presidents (and why you won't find Trump on the list)" ''Business Insider'' Jul 4, 2019]</ref> According to American political scientists of all political persuasions, the following were considered the best American Presidents in 2018:<ref>Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin S. Vaughn "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?" ''NY Times, Feb. 19, 2018</ref>

It must be noted that a majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2 RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists Brennan Weiss" ''Business Inside'', Feb 18, 2019,]</ref>

*1. [[Abraham Lincoln]]

*2. [[George Washington]]

*3. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt ]]

*4. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]

*5. [[Thomas Jefferson]]

*6. [[Harry Truman]]

*7. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]

*8. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barak Obama]]

*8. [[Bill Clinton]]

*9. [[Ronald Reagan]]

*9. [[Andrew Jackson]]

*10. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
[[Historical rankings of presidents of the United States]]

Academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-14T20:58:21Z

Timber2: Additional material added to remove leftist bias. Someone moved too quickly in moving the article

A majority of Republicans (53%) think Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. But there is one GOP President since Lincoln whom Republicans rate higher than Trump: A majority (59%) of Republicans believe Ronald Reagan was a better president than the current incumbent.<ref>https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/02/greatest-republican-president "Trump better than Lincoln? Republicans think so" In: Economist/YouGov Poll Politics & current affairs December 02, 2019]</ref> Neil, a Republican from Oregon, said that Trump “supersedes” Lincoln, because “Lincoln only freed the slaves,” he said during a call to the network Wednesday. “Yes, that’s a big thing. But what Trump is doing is far greater.”<ref> [ Deanna Paul "Trump greater than Lincoln? Republicans polled said yes in a party Lincoln wouldn’t recognize. ''Wahington Post'', Dec. 5, 2019]</ref>

On the other hand in a survey by nearly 100 historians and biographers Abraham Lincoln was voted the best US president. This survey rated 43 US presidents on "10 qualities of presidential leadership".
Other notable names "include George Washington at No. 2, Thomas Jefferson at No. 7, and Barack Obama at No. 12". As the survey is undertaken "after a sitting president's term", President Donald Trump was excluded.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2 , Rachel Gillett and Allana Akhtar "These are the top 25 US presidents (and why you won't find Trump on the list)" ''Business Insider'' Jul 4, 2019]</ref> According to American political scientists of all political persuasions, the following were considered the best American Presidents in 2018:<ref>Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin S. Vaughn "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?" ''NY Times, Feb. 19, 2018</ref>

It must be noted that a majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2 RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists Brennan Weiss" ''Business Inside'', Feb 18, 2019,]</ref>

*1. [[Abraham Lincoln]]

*2. [[George Washington]]

*3. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt ]]

*4. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]

*5. [[Thomas Jefferson]]

*6. [[Harry Truman]]

*7. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]

*8. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barak Obama]]

*8. [[Bill Clinton]]

*9. [[Ronald Reagan]]

*9. [[Andrew Jackson]]

*10. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

Leftist academic rankings of presidents of the United States

2020-05-14T20:51:52Z

Timber2: Balance

A majority of Republicans (53%) think Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. But there is one GOP President since Lincoln whom Republicans rate higher than Trump: A majority (59%) of Republicans believe Ronald Reagan was a better president than the current incumbent.<ref>https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/02/greatest-republican-president "Trump better than Lincoln? Republicans think so" In: Economist/YouGov Poll Politics & current affairs December 02, 2019]</ref> Neil, a Republican from Oregon, said that Trump “supersedes” Lincoln, because “Lincoln only freed the slaves,” he said during a call to the network Wednesday. “Yes, that’s a big thing. But what Trump is doing is far greater.”<ref> [ Deanna Paul "Trump greater than Lincoln? Republicans polled said yes in a party Lincoln wouldn’t recognize. ''Wahington Post'', Dec. 5, 2019]</ref>

On the other hand in a survey by nearly 100 historians and biographers Abraham Lincoln was voted the best US president. This survey rated 43 US presidents on "10 qualities of presidential leadership".
Other notable names "include George Washington at No. 2, Thomas Jefferson at No. 7, and Barack Obama at No. 12". As the survey is undertaken "after a sitting president's term", President Donald Trump was excluded.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2 , Rachel Gillett and Allana Akhtar "These are the top 25 US presidents (and why you won't find Trump on the list)" ''Business Insider'' Jul 4, 2019]</ref> According to American political scientists of all political persuasions, the following were considered the best American Presidents in 2018:<ref>Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin S. Vaughn "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?" ''NY Times, Feb. 19, 2018</ref>

It must be noted that a majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2 RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists Brennan Weiss" ''Business Inside'', Feb 18, 2019,]</ref>

*1. [[Abraham Lincoln]]

*2. [[George Washington]]

*3. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt ]]

*4. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]

*5. [[Thomas Jefferson]]

*6. [[Harry Truman]]

*7. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]

*8. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barak Obama]]

*8. [[Bill Clinton]]

*9. [[Ronald Reagan]]

*9. [[Andrew Jackson]]

*10. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2020-05-14T17:55:50Z

Timber2: punctuation

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]; may have had a prior marriage.<ref>Corsi, Jerome R. (July 19, 2012). [https://www.wnd.com/2012/07/was-barack-obama-married-in-college/ "Was Barack Obama married in college?"]. WorldNetDaily website. See [[WND]]</ref>
|religion= Islam(secretly)
|offices={{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Donald Trump]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=Illinois Senate, 13th district
|terms=January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004
|preceded=[[Alice Palmer]]
|succeeded=Kwame Raoul
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''''s claim to have been born in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] on August 4, 1961 has been disputed by some. He was the 44th President of the [[United States]]. Elected as America's first "post-racial" president according to some, Obama exacerbated racial tensions and left a dismal legacy of a divided<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (July 22, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/22/pollak-barack-obama-wrote-playbook-on-political-division/ Pollak: Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 22, 2019.</ref> America along [[Marxist]] class, racial, and "[[gender confusion|gender normative]]" lines, according to others.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/obama-race-relations-poll/</ref> In his final year in office, Barack Obama illegally meddled in the [[2016 Presidential election]] and attempted to blame the [[Russian]]s for it.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/02/10/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-believe-obama-improperly-surveilled-trump-campaign/</ref> In early January 2017, Obama empowered holdovers in his administration to stage a [[coup]] against the [[Trump transition]] team and the incoming [[Trump administration]].<ref>*https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/08/soft-coup-on-trump-hiding-in-plain-sight/ *[http://archive.is/9KxFz How Obama Ran the Trump Coup], By Robert A. Taft, Feb 17, 2020.</ref>

Obama insisted on failed policies, such as [[ObamaCare]], and yet had an arrogant dismissal of his critics.<ref>
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/7/assessing-the-obama-legacy-he-has-failed/ Assessing the Obama legacy], Washington Times, December 7, 2016
*[https://www.nationalreview.com/article/442299/barack-obama-progressive-arrogance-leads-backlash Its Arrogance and Condescension Finally Catches Up with the Left], ''National Review'', 2016
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/17/president-obamas-biggest-mistake-in-office-thinking-you-can-separate-politics-from-policy/?utm_term=.802d414c3589 President Obama admits his biggest mistake: Arrogance], ''Washington Post'', 2015</ref> A hard veil of censorship fell during his administration.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162</ref> Much of Obama's personal life was shrouded in mystery<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sca-BjFJb_Q</ref> as the media promoted his agenda of uprooting cultural norms. Critics of Obamacare or [[gay marriage]] typically were smeared as racist. The US Intelligence Community was used to spy on, harass, and intimidate independent journalists and political opponents.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120925054433/http://wikileaks.org:80/gifiles/docs/1210665_obama-leak-investigations-internal-use-only-pls-do-not.html</ref> His presidency was marred by anemic economic growth, rising federal debt, his poor foreign policies and multiple political scandals.<ref>
*[https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html Barack Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth], Real Clear Markets, February of 2016
*[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-9000000000000 Debt Under Obama Up $9,000,000,000,000], CNS News, October 2016
*[https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/18/barack-obama-was-a-foreign-policy-failure/ Barack Obama Was a Foreign-Policy Failure], ForeignPolicy.com
*[https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/08/20/obamas-legacy-of-failure-in-the-middle-east/ Obama’s Legacy of Failure in the Middle East], ''Foreign Policy Journal'', 2016
*[https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/ 18 Major Scandals in Obama’s ‘Scandal-Free’ Presidency], Breitbart, January of 2017
*[http://akdart.com/obama101.html Lists of Obama scandals], Andrew K. Dart, http://akdart.com updated January 2019.</ref> Obama separated families at the border and locked children in cages.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border</ref> Pursuing a foreign policy that undermined American interests, he developed close relations with foreign dictators and shunned democratic movements.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (July 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/07/12/pollak-everything-joe-biden-said-about-donald-trumps-foreign-policy-actually-describes-barack-obamas/ Pollak: Everything Joe Biden Said About Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Actually Describes Barack Obama’s]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 12, 2019.</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi/status/1038127594682675200 Heshmat Alavi]. ''Twitter''. September 7, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2019.</ref> He failed to see the backlash against his "transformational" [[Cultural Marxist]] programs and said in February 2016, "I continue to believe that Mr. [[Donald Trump|Trump]] will not be president."<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/obama-i-continue-believe-trump-will-not-be-president-n519751 Obama: ‘I Continue to Believe Trump Will Not Be President’], NBC, 2016</ref> Obama is arguably the worst president in U.S. history.<ref>Bedard, Paul (September 7, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/list-200-reasons-why-obama-is-worst-president-in-history List: 200 reasons why Obama is ‘worst president in history’]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 7, 2018.</ref>

Obama was educated at [[Harvard Law School]]. In a paper he wrote as a student, he dismissed the American dream as "unfounded optimism" while noting that [[Donald Trump]] is the true idol of the American working class.<ref>Obama wrote: “[Americans have] a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.” ([http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/everything-wrong-with-obama-in-two-sentences-with-a-twist.php Everything Wrong with Obama in Two Sentences-with a Twist]").</ref>

[[Barack Obama and abortion|Obama is pro-abortion]]. In fact, he was the most pro-abortion president to date.<ref>[https://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/obama-most-pro-abortion-president-ever "Obama: The most pro-abortion president ever"] (July 12, 2011). The Susan B. Anthony List website/The Suzy B Blog.</ref> Obama dedicated himself to promoting abortion—rather than reduce them as he promised. Just to name a few of the administrative actions by which he has done this would include expanding abortions through [[Obamacare]], appointing many pro-abortion judges and officials, moving to strip medical professionals of rights of conscience, and forcing taxpayers to support the pro-abortion movement around the globe.

Obama partnered with [[al Qaeda]] and [[Islamic State]] elements in [[Syria]] for a [[regime change]] war against [[Bashar al Assad]].<ref>https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19583-moderate-rebels-armed-by-obama-join-al-qaeda-isis</ref> Assad was a voice for pluralism and inclusion, protecting Christians, Jews, Yazidis and minorities against Obama-backed [[Islamofascist]]s.<ref>https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011912135213927196.html</ref>

Despite framing himself as an advocate for the poor, speaking about income inequality and [[socialism]], Obama is a [[limousine liberal]] as his life after his presidency attests.

==Biography==
'''Early controversies'''
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
Obama claims to have been born in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] on August 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]]—who had married just six months prior.<ref name=msnbc>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ "Obama becomes rising star among Democrats: Transcript of 'The Candidates: Barack Obama'"] (February 20, 2008). MSNBC. Retrieved from NBC News website/MSNBC TV documentaries. See [[MSNBC]].</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. [[Obama]] was reportedly given a social security number whose first three digits were assigned at that time to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all [[Social Security]] numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland. [https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html "The SSN numbering scheme"] (March 2001 or bef.) Social Security: Official Social Security website/History/Social Security Numbers.</ref> Obama traveled to Pakistan, India, and Indonesia in 1981, however, he never obtained a U.S. passport until 2004 after he was elected to the United States Senate. During the 2008 presidential primaries, a firm headed by [[John Brennan]] hacked into the [[U.S. State Department]]'s visa files and accessed Obama's passport files using whichever Social Security numbers Obama was using at the time.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html</ref> An FBI informant and whistleblower who worked for Brennan, and was the key witness, was found murdered by a gunshot wound two weeks later.<ref>https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/</ref> Obama later appointed Brennan to a key White House position and as [[CIA]] director in his second term. Brennan was referred for [[criminal]] investigation in 2019 in Obama's [[Spygate]] scandal.

Claims that Obama was born in [[Kenya]] have been traced to sources hired by Obama. In 1991, Obama's literary agent, Acton & Dystel, published a promotional booklet stating that Obama was born in Kenya.<ref>Multiple references:
*Pollak, Joel B. (May 17, 2012). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii "The vetting—exclusive—Obama's literary agent in 1991 booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'"]. Breitbart website/Big government. See [[Breitbart.com]].
*Newby, John (May 17, 2012). [http://www.examiner.com/article/publisher-s-1991-booklet-says-barack-obama-was-born-kenya "Publisher's 1991 booklet says Barack Obama 'was born in Kenya'"]. Examiner.com website/News/Politics/Republican.</ref> The claim that Obama was born in Kenya remained on the agent's website until 2007.<ref>Shapiro, Ben (May 17, 2012). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007 "Obama's lit agency used 'born in Kenya' bio until 2007"]. Breitbart website/Big government. See [[Breitbart.com]].</ref> Internet archives confirm this information.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html "Client list"]. Dystel and Goderic Literary Management website. Retrieved from April 3, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.</ref> In addition to the information from literary agents, Michelle Obama stated in a speech that Kenya is Obama's "homeland".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzJz2A2N1c "Michelle Obama: Kenya is Barack Obama's homeland!"] (Michelle Obama speaking at the 2008 LGBT Democratic Convention delegate luncheon hosted by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign: "The world as it should be", August 26, 2008) (April 7, 2010). YouTube video, 0:30, posted by Rubystars0000. See [[Human Rights Campaign]].</ref> At a speech in Kenya shortly after his presidency ended, Obama publicly stated that, "Now, three years ago, I visited Kenya as the first sitting American President to come from Kenya."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L36sGc4Id2I Obama's speech at the launch of Sauti Kuu Foundation in Kogelo] at YouTube (Obama's admission starts at 5:48 of the video)</ref>

Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 when his mother discovered Barack Obama Sr. was already married to a woman living in Kenya.<ref>Birrell, Ian (August 12, 2011). [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2024819/Barack-Obamas-father-Bigamist-drunk-wife-beater.html "Barack Obama's father: Bigamist, drunk and wife-beater, [review of] ''The Other Barack'' by Sally H. Jacobs (Pubic Affairs £20)"]. MailOnline/U.K./Books [U.K.] This is one of the first misleading statements about Barack Obama when he was introduced to America as Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Advance publicity billed him as the "son of Kenyan economist" when, in fact, Obama Sr. was forced out of the graduate program at Harvard because of his bigamy. He returned to Kenya. Obama at the age 9 once briefly met his father who served in the corrupt Kenyan socialist regime's Department of [[Economic Planning]]. Obama Sr. killed himself in a drunken car accident.</ref> When Obama was 2 years old his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. At age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|publisher=The Daily Beast website|date=May 3, 2011|title="Dreams of his mother": Review of ''A Singular Woman'' by Janny Scott|author=Stacy Schiff}} See [[The Daily Beast]].</ref> His mother then abandoned him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) <ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts. See CNN</ref> so she could return to Indonesia after her divorce. Obama's grandfather arranged for his friend, the noted Communist writer [[Frank Marshall Davis]], to serve as a mentor and role model for an impressionable African-American youth.

Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (March 2008). [https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 "Raising Obama"]. ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to [[Columbia University]], he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending [[Harvard Law School]] (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

Obama attended [[Jeremiah Wright|Reverend Jeremiah Wright]]'s Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a [[community organizer]] (''See [[Barack Obama#1984-1988.2C Community Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic school while he was in kindergarten, and later a public school which taught religion. The school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians are Muslim). In ''[[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|Dreams from My Father]]'', Obama writes, "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to my mother that I had made faces during [[Koran]]ic studies."<ref>Obama, Barack (1995). ''Dreams from My Father'' (New York: Times Books), p. 14. Quoted at [http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dreams_From_My_Father_Principles_+_Values.htm "Dreams from my father: On principles & values"]. OnTheIssues website. See [[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|''Dreams from my Father'']]</ref> ''Insight'' magazine first reported [[Hillary Clinton]]'s organization had "questions about Obama’s Muslim background: ''Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a [[Madrassa]] as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?"''<ref>Schlussel, Debbie (January 19, 2007). [http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2899/hillary-clinton-agrees-with-schlussel-obama-suspicious-deceptive-on-muslim-background/ "Hillary Clinton agrees with Schlussel: Obama suspicious, deceptive on Muslim background"]. Debbie Schlussel website. See [[Debbie Schlussel]].</ref>

In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu where he began substance abuse and illegal drugs.<ref>Johnson, Luke (May 25, 2012). [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/obama-pot-smoking-details_n_1545904.html "Obama pot-smoking details revealed in David Maraniss book"]. The Huffington Post website. See [[Huffington Post]].</ref> He was accepted through a scholarship for disadvantaged minorities while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At this elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students. Obama failed to make the starting lineup of the school's state champion basketball team his senior year. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles,<ref name=msnbc /> and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (July 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "In Illinois, Obama proved pragmatic and shrewd"]. ''The New York Times'' website. See ''[[New York Times]]''.</ref> During this time he published an anti-military tirade embracing Soviet General Secretary [[Leonid Brezhnev]]'s <ref>Obama supported [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] General Secretary Brezhnev's foreign policy over both Presidents [[Jimmy Carter]] and Ronald Reagan's decision to deploy the MX Missile in Europe.
* See Pond, Elizabeth (November 24, 1981). [https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1124/112439.html "Brezhnev offers Schmidt moratorium on nuclear missiles"]. ''Christian Science Monitor''. See also ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]''.
* See also Obama, Barack (March 10, 1983). [https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article/original.pdf "Breaking the war mentality"]. Columbia [University] ''Sundial''. Retrieved from archive at ''The New York Times'' website. See also ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> proposal for a nuclear freeze in the campus newspaper and allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, Janny. (October 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "Obama's account of New York years often differs from what others say"]. ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> From 1983 to 1988, Obama took time off from his education to work as a financial analyst and later a community organizer in Chicago. In the winter of 1988, Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the ''[[Harvard]] Law Review''. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a "marathon voting session" in which he finally won on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue his political career in Chicago.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ "Obama becomes rising star among Democrats: Transcript of 'The Candidates: Barack Obama'"] (February 20, 2008). MSNBC. Retrieved from NBC News website/MSNBC TV documentaries. See MSNBC.
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts. See [[CNN]]</ref>

When Obama was attending Harvard Law School, he dreamed of him or his children becoming like [[Donald Trump]].<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/obama-once-dreamed-being-trump-manuscript-shows.html Obama once dreamed of being Trump, manuscript shows]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref>

'''Personal life'''
According to ''Rising Star'' by David J. Garrow, in 1986 Obama tried hard to convince Sheila Miyoshii Jager, someone of Dutch and Japanese ancestry, to marry him.<ref name="MarryBefore"/> She refused his request to marry him due to her age. By 1987, Obama had his sights on becoming U.S. President.<ref name="MarryBefore">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/book-barack-obama-asked-woman-to-marry-him-before-meeting-michelle.html Book: Barack Obama asked woman to marry him before meeting Michelle]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref>

[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, Barack Obama's domestic partner.]]
Barack Obama met his mate known then as Michelle Robinson, while he was an intern and Michelle was on staff at Sidley Austin LLP, a very large corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> Despite company policy prohibiting relations between staff and interns, the two became involved. The two continued a long-distance relationship while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1992,<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/obama-anniversary-20-years-married_n_1935840.html "Obama anniversary: Barack & Michelle celebrate 20 years of marriage (photos)"] (October 3, 2012). Huffington Post website. Huffington Post says it was October 3, 1992. See [[Huffington Post]].</ref> were joined in a domestic union officiated by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church,<ref>http://hillbuzz.org/time-to-tell-everyone-you-know-about-jeremiah-wrights-down-low-club-barackobama-presobama-26407</ref> a church which has supported gay marriage since the 1970s.<ref name=revealed /> Michelle has not practiced law since 1994 when she failed to renew her law license, allegedly to start a family. Malia, the couple's oldest daughter, was born in 1999, and Natasha (often called Sasha) in 2001.<ref name=msnbc />

===Early employment===
'''1983–1984: financial analyst and writer'''

In 1983 Obama [[collude]]d with [[Russia]] to further Russian [[foreign policy]] interests against the United States in an essay entitled ''Breaking The War Mentality'' published in Columbia University's weekly magazine, ''The Sun Dial.''<ref>https://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/obama-article-sun-dial-columbia-breaking-war-mentality.pdf</ref>

In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to help pay off some of his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies in understanding overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere.<ref>Multiple references:
*Scott, Janny (October 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "Obama's account of New York years often differs from what others say"]. ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.
*Henig, Jess (June 21, 2008). [https://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ "Obama polishes his resume"]. FactCheck.org website.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20091003011550/http://www.analyzethis.net/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/ "Barack Obama embellishes his resume"] (July 9, 2005). Analyze This website. Retrieved from October 3, 2009 archive at Internet Archive.</ref>

====1984–1988: community organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs />

From 1985–88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago <ref>The Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC)</ref> funded with a $25,000 grant by [[Bill Ayers]]' Woods Fund. ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car<ref>Multiple references:
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts. See [[CNN]].
*Scott, Janny (September 9, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all "In 2000, a streetwise veteran schooled a bold young Obama]." ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> however stories vary wildly. Jerry Kellman, who hired him, says it was "$10,000 a year and a $2,000 car allowance". Obama himself gave different numbers; his memoir says $10,000 (as well as the car), in his Wesleyan speech he gave it as "$12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car", and when he announced his candidacy for president, it was "a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year".

Ryan Lizza at ''[[The New Republic]]'' reported that "Jean Rudd of the Woods Fund...had provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama". Ari Berman reported in ''[[The Nation]]'' that the "[Woods Fund] gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama". CBS Channel 2 in Chicago ran a story with a document showing that Obama's proposed salary in 1987 was $25,000, a number that the Obama campaign confirmed while insisting at the same time his original salary was $13,000.<ref>Beckwith (April 23, 2008 or bef.). [http://theobamafile.com/obamaworks.htm "Community organizing"]. The Obama File website/Politics.</ref> Many of the organizers that Obama worked with in Chicago were experienced in the methods of [[Saul Alinsky]], and taught Obama many of the methods found in his book ''[[Rules for Radicals]]''.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/03/14/how%20saul%20alinsky%20taught%20barack%20obama%20everything%20he%20knows%20about%20civic%20upheaval/ How Saul Alinsky Taught Barack Obama Everything He Knows About Civic Upheaval]</ref>

During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''[[CNN]]'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. Obama abandoned the fight against asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project to pursue personal interests and a career by enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
[[File:Bookbio.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The Birther movement was started by Obama himself.]]
'''1988–1996: law practice'''
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP,<ref>Multiple references:
*Lattman, Peter (May 11, 2007). [https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ "When Barack met Michelle"]. Wall Street Journal website/Business/Law Blog/Lawyers and Law Firms. See ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts.</ref> whose partners included [[Newton Minow]], thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at the Sidley Austin firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future domestic partner.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law including suing Citibank to force them into making [[Subprime loan|subprime mortgage]]s to minority borrowers.<ref>Schweizer, Peter (October 5, 2009). [https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html "A poisonous cocktail: Expanding the Community Reinvestment Act"]. ''Forbes'' website. See [[Forbes]]. In ''Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank'', lead attorney Obama alleged that although his clients had been denied mortgages "because of delinquent credit obligations and adverse credit," they were really victims of institutional racism. The suit was brought about by the Community Reinvestment Act, so called affirmative action mortgage lending. The plaintiffs won $60,000, and the court awarded Sidley Austin $950,000 for the work of Obama and two other attorneys.</ref> After graduating from Harvard he was hired by Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref>Lattman, Peter (May 11, 2007). [https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ "When Barack met Michelle"]. Wall Street Journal website/Business/Law Blog/Lawyers and Law Firms. See ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.</ref> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer [[Tony Rezko]].<ref name=revealed />

'''1991–1992: Project Vote'''
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!,<ref name=revealed /> and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with defeating popular incumbent Democrat Senator Alan Dixon in the primary and electing [[Carol Moseley-Braun]] as a reprisal for Dixon's support for Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref name=PurdumandScott>Multiple references:
*Purdum, Todd (March 2008). [https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 "Raising Obama"]. ''Vanity Fair''.
*Scott, Janny (July 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "In Illinois, Obama proved pragmatic and shrewd"]. ''The New York Times'' website. See ''[[New York Times]]''.</ref>

'''1991-1995: Author'''

In 1995 Obama published ''[[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|Dreams From My Father]]'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc /> It was in a 1992 book Obama claimed to have been born in Kenya.

====1995: Nation of Islam====
[[File:Barack-Hussein-Obama-mit-Louis-Farrakhan-528x524.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Barack Obama with the notorious [[anti-Semite]], [[Louis Farrakhan]]. Farrakhan calls [[Jews]] "pigs and dogs." The [[Anti-Defamation League]] identifies Farrakhan as the nation's “leading anti-Semite."<ref>[https://www.adl.org/resources/profiles/the-nation-of-islam The Nation of Islam], Anti-Defamation League.</ref>]]
According to the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', prior to the information being scrubbed from its website in mid-April 2008 during the Democratic Presidential Primaries, Obama was one of three prominent organizers of black supremacist group the [[Nation of Islam]]'s [[Million Man March]] on Washington, D.C.<ref>Hoft, Jim (April 2, 2008). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/04/wright-obama-helped-organize-march-with-louis-farrakhan/ "Wright & Obama helped organize march with Louis Farrakhan"]. Gateway Pundit website. See [[Gateway Pundit]]</ref>

'''1992–2004: lecturer at University of Chicago'''
Obama taught part-time at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. Though Obama erroneously describes himself as a "constitutional law professor",<ref>Whiteman, Timothy (April 5, 2013). [http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-complains-of-being-constrained-by-a-system-founding-father-put-place "Obama complains of being 'constrained by a system' Founding Fathers put in place"]. Examiner.com/News/Politics/Republican.</ref> he was actually only a senior lecturer and the class he taught the most times was called "Current Issues in Racism and the Law".<ref>Holt, Mytheos (September 20, 2012). [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/20/obamas-favorite-course-to-teach-at-the-university-of-chicago-revealed/ "Obama’s favorite course to teach at the University of Chicago revealed"]. The Blaze/Stories/Media. See [[The Blaze]].</ref> He was a Lecturer from 1992–96, teaching 3 courses per year<cite>, and a senior lecturer from 1996-2004. After Obama was criticized for lying about his job title, the University of Chicago released a statement stating that senior lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time, tenured track position several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>[https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media "Media inquiries: Statement regarding Barack Obama"] (March 2008 or bef.). University of Chicago Law School website. See [[University of Chicago]]</ref>

===Awards===
Obama shares the distinction with [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Josef Stalin]] as twice being named ''[[Time magazine]]'' person of the year.

'''2009 Nobel Peace Prize'''

On October 9, 2009, Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (October 10, 2009). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html "President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize"]. ''Washington Post'' website. See [[Washington Post]].</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>[https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html "The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press release"] (October 9, 2009). Nobel Prize website [Oslo, Norway]/Nobel Prizes/Peace/Laureates/2009. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>CNN (October 9, 2009). [https://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html?eref=ib_us "Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action'"]. CNN website/World/Europe.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize—men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Multiple references:
*Chazan, Guy and MacDonald, Alistair (October 11, 2009) [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html "Nobel Committee's decision courts controversy"]. ''The Wall Street Journal'' website/World.
*Associated Press (October 9, 2009). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ "Obama's Peace Prize draws criticism, even from some liberals"]. Fox News website/Politics. See [[Associated Press]].</ref>

==1996–2003: Illinois State Senate==
'''1996 election'''
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like-minded individuals gathered for a fundraising event in the early career of Barack Obama hosted by [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]] [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Besides Obama, those in attendance were Ayers wife [[Bernardine Dohrn]],<ref>Geyer, Georgie Anne and Beech, Keyes (October 1970). "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals [five part series]". ''Chicago Daily News''/''Chicago Sun-Times''. Excerpted in
[https://vault.fbi.gov/Weather%20Underground%20(Weathermen) ''Foreign Influence: Weather Underground Organization (WUO)''] (August 20, 1976), pp. 113-115. FBI. Retrieved from "Weather Underground (Weathermen)" webpage PDF rendering, part 3 of 6, pp. 5-7 at FBI website/FBI Records: The Vault. Located by The Real Barack Obama blog. See ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]''.</ref> and Carl Davidson, veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] just prior to the 1968 Democrat National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>Klein, Aaron (August 13, 2009). [https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 "Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder"]. WorldNetDaily website. "[[Van Jones]]...served on board of..." "activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director"'. See [[WorldNetDaily]].</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill Ayers#Prairie Fire Organizing Committee and Maoist thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]]'', the title taken from [[Quotations from Chairman Mao|''The Sayings of Mao Zedong'']].<ref>[https://archive.org/details/QuotationsFromChairmanMaoTse-tung/ ''Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung''] (1966), 2nd ed. Retrieved from Internet Archive.</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Klehr, Harvey (1988). ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (New Brunswick: Transaction Books), p. 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''[[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|Dreams From My Father]]''<ref>Cashill, Jack (March 28, 2011). [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html "Ayers affirms he wrote ''Dreams from my Father''"]. American Thinker website/Blog. See [[American Thinker]].</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, John (October 21, 2009). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html "From Mao to Obama"]. ''Wall Street Journal'' website.</ref>

===A Charter of Negative Liberties===
In a 2001 interview on WBEZ FM Chicago Public Radio, Senator Obama said some critically disparaging things about the [[United States Constitution]]. He said:

<blockquote>If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. 
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.<ref>[https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution Barack Obama's Poor Understanding of the Constitution]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv]</ref><ref>[https://www.wnd.com/2008/10/79225/ Obama rips U.S. Constitution]</ref></blockquote>

'''Backstabbing fellow Democrats'''

Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent [[Alice Palmer]], who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David and Long, Ray (April 4, 2007). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-04-04/news/0704030881_1_petitions-voter-rights-candidates "Barack Obama: Showing his bare knuckles"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by ''The New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both CNN<ref name=revealed /> and MSNBC.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
—Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (April 3, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130123154440/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story "Obama knows his way around a ballot"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. Retrieved from January 23, 2013 archive at Internet Archive.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757).<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (February 28, 2008). [https://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ "Barack Obama and me"]. ''Houston Press'' website.</ref> Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (May 29, 2008). [https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/ "Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign"]. CNN website. Article text begins: "When the Democratic National Committee meets Saturday on the thorny issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations..."</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.

'''2000 election'''
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former [[Black Panther]] Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. Michelle Obama opposed taking on such an iconic figure dear to the community and threatened divorce.<ref>Bates, Daniel (May 16, 2012). [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145035/Michelle-Obama-prepared-divorce-papers-separate-Barack-leaving-suicidal.html "New book claims Michelle Obama prepared divorce papers to separate from Barack—leaving him so depressed friends feared he'd kill himself"]. ''Daily Mail'' website. See ''[[Daily Mail]]''.</ref> Establishment Democrats considered Obama "a white man in blackface".<ref>Gilmore, Jim (reporter, producer). (October 9, 2012). [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/transcript-29/ "Transcript of 'Barack Obama' in Kirk, Michael and Wiser, Mike (producers) '''Frontline'': The Choice 2012'"]. PBS website/WGBH/Frontline/film/The Choice 2012.</ref> Rush said of Obama, "He went to Harvard and became an educated fool," adding, "We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees."<ref>Ballasy, Nicholas (March 28, 2012). [https://dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/bobby-rush-in-2000-obamas-a-harvard-educated-fool-who-thinks-he-knows-all-about-the-civil-rights-protests/ "Bobby Rush in 2000: Obama a Harvard ‘educated fool’ who ‘thinks he knows all about’ the ‘civil rights protests’"]. Daily Caller website. See [[Daily Caller]].</ref> Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that
{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now....One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}
Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref>Scott, Janny (September 9, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all "In 2000, a streetwise veteran schooled a bold young Obama]." ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />

'''State Senate voting record'''

Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] – in fact, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama record may be gold mine for critics|publisher=CBS News website|last=Clark|first=Amy|date=January 17, 2007}} See [[CBS News]].</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|publisher=''The New York Times'' website|title=In Illinois, Obama proved pragmatic and shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|date=July 30, 2007|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}.</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. See Davidson, Carl (November 2, 2006). [https://web.archive.org/web/20100811115415/http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 "About CAWI"]. Chicagoans Against War and Injustice website. Retrieved from August 11, 2010 archive at Internet Archive.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[https://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson] (2010 or bef.) LinkedIn [Profile page/Experience/Webmaster]. Retrieved March 13, 2010 and February 13, 2016.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

'''2003 Emil Jones deal'''
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances Obama approached the newly crowned president of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, whom Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>Associated Press (March 31, 2008). [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-political-godfather-in-illinois/ "Obama's political 'godfather' in Illinois"]. CBS News website. See [[Associated Press]], CBS News.</ref> the conversation went as follows:
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’"<ref name=PurdumandScott/>}}
Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak />—as CNN's Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile,<ref name=godfather /> he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref>Multiple references:
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html "Transcript of 'Barack Obama Revealed'"]. CNN website/Transcripts.
*Spivak, Todd (March 25, 2004). [http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html "In the black"]. ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
—Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004–2008: U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama#U.S. Senate .282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''p
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]] Obama was a relatively undistinguished Senator.

'''2004 Primary election'''
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]],<ref>Spivak, Todd (March 25, 2004). [http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html "In the black"]. ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites "Obama routs Democratic foes"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (March 19, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20070826095930/http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp "The rise and fall of Blair Hull"]. The Claremont Institute website. Retrieved from August 26, 2007 archive at Internet Archive. See [[Claremont Institute]].</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterward criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (March 18, 2004). [https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems "See a rising star in Illinois Senate Candidate"]. ''USA Today'' website/News/Politics-Elections/Nation/Campaign 2004. See ''[[USA Today]]''.</ref>

'''2004 General election, Jack Ryan'''

Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular front-runner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>Associated Press (June 26, 2004). [https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm "Jack Ryan abandons Senate bid"]. ''USA Today'' website/News/Politics-Elections/State/Campaign 2004. See [[Associated Press]].</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (October 1, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20060924232703/http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html "Jack Ryan '81: The conservative idealist"]. ''Dartmouth Independent'' website. Retrieved from September 24, 2006 archive at Internet Archive.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>Obama, Barack (June 26, 2004). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html "Transcript: Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama [Keynote address at 2004 Democratic National Convention]"]. Transcribed by FDCH E-Media. ''Washington Post'' website. See ''[[Washington Post]]''.</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan and Despeignes, Peronet (July 28, 2004). [https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm "Rising star brings Democrats to their feet"]. ''USA Today'' website/News/Politics-Elections/Nation/President/Campaign 2004. See ''[[USA Today]]''.</ref>

'''2004 General election, Alan Keyes'''
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''
After a number of candidates including former [[Chicago Bears]] coach Mike Ditka declined to run,<ref>CNN (August 9, 2004). [https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/senate.illinois.keyes/ "Keyes challenges Obama for Illinois Senate seat"]. CNN website/Politics/America Votes 2004. See [[CNN]].</ref> the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations,<ref name=spivak /> with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>Multiple references:
*"[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes "The GOP's rent-a-senator"] (August 6, 2004). ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''.
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html "Mr. Keyes the carpetbagger"] (August 9, 2004). ''Washington Post'', p. A14. Retrieved from ''Washington Post'' website. See ''[[Washington Post]]''.
*Pearson, Rick (September 5, 2004). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party "Keyes, state GOP gearing up blame campaign"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website/News.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (August 18, 2004). [https://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html "How YOU can help Alan Keyes for Senate!"] Message from Keyes2004 Inc. to multiple internet mailing lists. Retrieved from archive of newsandviews internet mailing list at The Mail Archive website.</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004),<ref name=assails>Associated Press (August 9, 2004). [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ "Keyes assails Obama's abortion views"]. NBC News website/Politics.</ref> accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>United States Congress (October 21, 2003). [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s3/text/enr "S. 3 (108th): "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003"], sec. 2, subsec. 14, paras. G and O. Govtrack.us website/Congress/Bills/108th Congress/Senate bill 3/Text.</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Multiple references:
*Keyes, Alan (June 2008 or bef.) [http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 "Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show"]. Alan Keyes Archives website. Transcript of interview by Tavis Smiley. ''Tavis Smiley Show'' (New York City: National Public Radio, August 31, 2004). See [[NPR]].
*Keyes, Alan (June 2008 or bef.) [http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 "Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning"]. Alan Keyes Archives website. Transcript of interview with ''CBS This Morning'' show. ''CBS This Morning'' (Chicago: CBS 2, August 30, 2004).</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates "Debate or discussion?"] (October 13, 2004). ''Chicago Tribune'' website/News.</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Keyes, Alan (June 2008 or bef.). [http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 "Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)"]. Alan Keyes Archives website. Transcript of interview by Scott Thomas. ''Scott Thomas Show'' (Chicago: WYLL, AM 1160, September 7, 2004).</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref>Multiple references:
*Pearson, Rick (September 5, 2004). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party "Keyes, state GOP gearing up blame campaign"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website/News.
*Associated Press (September 2, 2004). [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/5897569/ns/politics/t/keyes-cheneys-gay-daughter-practicing-selfish-hedonism/#.VsR94_krKWg "Keyes: Cheney's gay daughter practicing selfish hedonism"]. NBC News website/Politics.
*Pallasch, Abdon M. (September 2, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20040903052923/http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-keyes02.html "Keyes' gay slam roils GOP"]. ''Chicago Sun-Times'' website/News/Elections. Retrieved from September 3, 2004 archive at Internet Archive. See ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]''. This article misquotes [[Liz Cheney]]; previous bulleted reference in this multiple reference gives full quote verified by CNN transcript.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html "America votes 2004: Election Results, U.S. Senate/Illinois"] (November 2, 2004). CNN Hungary website/Elections.</ref>

'''U.S. Senate voting record'''
Obama's incomplete term in the U.S. Senate was largely not noteworthy. In voting against raising the [[debt limit]] in 2006 Obama famously said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."<ref>Multiple references:
*''Washington Post'' FACT CHECKER, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/annotating-obamas-2006-speech-against-boosting-the-debt-limit/2013/01/14/aa8cf8c4-5e9b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html Annotating Obama’s 2006 speech against boosting the debt limit], Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, 01/15/2013.
*Kaplan, Rebecca (April 11, 2011). [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ "Obama once opposed debt ceiling hike"]. ''The Atlantic'' website/Politics.</ref> In 2008 as candidate for president Obama called George W. Bush's request to raise the debt limit "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q "Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic [July 3, 2008]"] (August 23, 2011). YouTube video, 0:38, posted by maywhitley31.</ref>

The ''National Journal'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title="''National Journal'': Obama most liberal senator in 2007"|author=Montopoli, Brian|date=January 31, 2008|publisher=CBS News website}}. See [[CBS News]].</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> and voted against the [[minimum wage]] bill<ref>Multiple references:
*Gill, Kathy (May 26, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20070905140628/http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm "HR 2206 - Emergency appropriations [110th Congress, House of Representives, signed into law May 25, 2007]"], About.com website/News & Issues/U. S. Politics: Current Events/Legislation. Retrieved from September 5, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.
*[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> he introduced because it included a provision to pay active duty U.S. troops. He voted for the $700 billion TARP program to bailout the big banks after receiving more than $120,000 in contributions from [[Fannie Mae]], a government-sponsored entity<ref>more than any other political candidate for office since 1989. [https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers], By Lindsay Renick Mayer, September 11, 2008. opensecrets.org</ref> taken into conservatorship for mismanaging its affairs and responsible for all the big banks' problems.

According to Opensecrets.org, of the 671,269 contributions to Obama during his time in the Senate, [[Goldman Sachs]], JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley were among the top 20 biggest money donors to his campaigns.<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008 Top 20 Contributors, 2007-2008]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/finance.php?can_id=9490 Barack Obama II's Campaign Finances]</ref> All four subsequently received approximately $70 billion in taxpayer assisted [[bailout]] money from the [[TARP]] program he voted for.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/14/business/14bailout.graphic2.html ''Beneficiary Banks'', ''The New York Times''. 2008-10-14.]</ref> UBS AG, a foreign bank and the 12th largest donor to Obama,<ref>[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Top 20 Contributors, 2007-2008]</ref> was fined $780 billion in February 2009 in a U.S. Federal Court on charges it helped thousands of Americans evade taxes.<ref>[https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20090219/FREE/902199983 ''UBS fined $780 million in tax evasion scandal,''] Investment News, February 19, 2009.</ref> After just four short years, Obama still ranks number one over all time of Big Pharma money recipients with slightly under $5 million, followed by Hillary Clinton with a little more than $3.5 million.<ref>https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&mem=Y</ref> Since entering the Senate, prescription opioid deaths in the U.S. rose from 12,000 per year to over 46,000 per year.<ref>https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html</ref>

==Presidential campaigns==
Contrary to popular myth at the end of the [[Cold War]], Communism did not die, it only went into remission. The rise of Barack Obama and passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) signaled a renewed attack on basic constitutional rights and a revival of a spectre haunting humanity.

===2008===
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Unlike Democrat contenders Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Obama's hands were not "stained" with the Iraqi war resolution; a number of Democrats wanted to punish candidates for acting [[bi-partisan]] and called for his candidacy. His only career accomplishment until then had been the delivery of a speech at the 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]].

Through heavy use of [[early voting]] by the Democrat political machine, Obama was elected president in 2008 in the midst of a severe economic meltdown and a foreign policy crisis. Obama outspent [[John McCain]] by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008,<ref>[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008 "Candidate comparison: Top contributors 2008 cycle"] (betw. September–November 2013). OpenSecrets.org website.</ref> and spending more than a billion dollars from special interests to snag reelection in 2012.<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 "Barack Obama (D): Candidate summary, 2012 cycle/Source of funds"] (betw. March–June 2013). Opensecrets.org website. 34% Individual contributions, 67% large and corporate.
*[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php "2012 presidential race/Overall spending"] (betw. August–September 2015). OpenSecrets.org website. These special interests count of over $1 billion may have decreased at least for a time since August–September 2015, where a grand total of individual contributions of less than $1 billion is reflected, but the grand total is presumably incomplete (shown, for example, by the uncounted University of California contributions revealed when comparing the subtotal from the time before August–September 2015 to the time afterwards, the subtotal thus ''increasing''), has every chance of remaining close to its precise revised estimated amount at the beginning of that time (of $964 million) and does not include Super PAC contributions, which is ''indirect'' spending.
**([https://web.archive.org/web/20150304050735/https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 Link to version of this reference] on March 4, 2015 [whose pertinent subtotal which follows was the same back to the time indicated in the first bulleted reference] which shows $1,212,245 in contributions from the University of California. This is ''vs.'' $1,350,139 in contributions shown in the version indicated by the Internet Archive to have been published between August–September 2015 and shown in versions at least for a time thereafter [version retrieved on February 7, 2016 shows the same amount].)</ref>
Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent [[John McCain]] in 2008 and declined to endorse Obama for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 presidential election]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [https://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

'''Primary election'''

In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democrat nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by [[Jill Stanek]]), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref>—including the Born Alive ones,<ref>Multiple references:
*Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[https://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''[[New York Sun]]''.
*Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>Multiple references:
*''Politi-Fact''. "[https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter.
*Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the [[National Organization for Women]].<ref>Multiple references:
*Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''.
*Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''.
*Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''[[Time Magazine]]''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''The New York Times''.</ref><ref>Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''[[Huffington Post]]''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20130414215754/https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''[[ABC News]]''.</ref>}}As the contest in Iowa drew near and the former First Lady's inevitability was being usurped by a challenger, Hillary Clinton organizers began circulating rumors that Obama was secretly a Muslim.<ref>[https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/barackemail/ Obama Under the Clinton Microscope], By JEFF ZELENY, ''The New York Times'', December 10, 2007</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/06/clinton-volunteers-anti-obama-e-mail-causes-stir/ Clinton volunteer's sending of anti-Obama e-mail causes stir]. December 6, 2007. CNN</ref><ref>[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=92143 Hillary Clinton Press Release - Sen. Obama Rewrites History], December 2, 2007, references Obama in the Muslim school in Indonesia in 3rd grade, quoting the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', 3/15/07</ref><ref>[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article1995587.ece Obama ‘was educated in madrassa’], Tim Reid and Tom Baldwin, ''[[The Times of London]]'', January 20, 2007.</ref> Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote,<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''[[Newsweek]]''.</ref><ref>''[[RealClearPolitics]]''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent,<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]." [[MSNBC]]</ref> when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>

'''Jeremiah Wright controversy'''
[[File:Obamaatcampdavid.jpg|thumb|right|President Obama in Evergreen Chapel]]
{{See also|Barack Obama and Liberation Theology}}
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts Trinity United Church of Christ Website (Barack Hussein Obama's Church)]</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>[https://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines], March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black [[South Africa]]ns, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11], [[ABC News]]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/ Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago], [[Fox News]] May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA Today, [https://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS''], by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081211092533/https://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm ''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"'']</ref>

===Born Alive record resurfaces===
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by [[Jill Stanek]].</ref><ref>''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''[[National Right to Life Committee]]''. "[https://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by [[Jill Stanek]]. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''[[CBN]] News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[https://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''[[New York Sun]]''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[https://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''[[National Right to Life Committee]]''.</ref>

'''Result'''
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''The New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency,<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref> which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''The New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

===2012===
:''Main article: [[Presidential Election 2012]]''
During his campaigns, Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" and was portrayed as saying that entrepreneurs and employers deserve no credit for building their businesses.<ref>Multiple references:
*Zuckerman, Mortimer B. (July 16, 2010). [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina "Obama's anti-business policies are our economic Katrina"]. ''U.S. News and World Report'' website.
*Barnes, Fred (July 22, 2009). [https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp "An anti-business president"]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38. Retrieved at The Weekly Standard website. See [[The Weekly Standard]].
*Shedlock, Mike (August 20, 2010). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html "Small businesses are not hiring—Why should they?"] Blogspot website/Mish's global economic trend analysis.
*Wright, C. Edmund (February 12, 2012). [https://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html "Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring"]. American Thinker website. See [[American Thinker]].</ref> On March 1, 2013 Obama issued [[Executive Order|executive orders]] to implement his [[Budget sequester|sequester]] of budget cuts which<ref>Bedard, Paul (February 27, 2013). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-boosts-obama-job-cut-threat-of-750000-to-2-million/article/2522664?custom_click=rss "Sequester hype: DNC adds 1.25 million job cuts to Obama's 750,000"]. ''Washington Examiner'' website. Article located by [[Weasel Zippers]] website.</ref> has been widely criticized for destroying jobs in what was an anemic and fragile recovery.<ref>Foys, Bob (February 26, 2013). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-26/news/chi-20130226-foys_briefs_1_sequester-president-obama-press-secretary-jay-carney "President Obama's sequester"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See [[Chicago Tribune]].</ref>

Warren L. Dean Jr., an adjunct professor of law at [[Georgetown University]] Law Center, wrote:
*{{obama income inequality}}

Obama's illegal domestic spying on political opponents and [[FISA abuse]] began in June 2012 before the November 2012 presidential election and was continued beyond his term of office by holdovers.<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/24/evidence-of-obama-administration-political-surveillance-beginning-mid-2012/</ref>

According to a [[NBC News]] poll, from August 2014, Obama's approval rating was a dismal 40%,<ref>Murray, Mark (August 5, 2014). [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-americans-dissatisfied-economy "Poll: Obama’s approval rating hits all-time low"]. MSNBC website. See [[MSNBC]]</ref> showing that six in ten Americans disapproved of his [[liberal]] policies. Given that liberals frequently engage in [[Liberal lies|deceit]], the actual approval ratings could be much lower. When Obama left office, the same pollsters who prognosticated a blowout win for Hillary Clinton maintained Obama's approval rating was above 50%.

===Birth certificate controversies===
: ''Main article: [[Barack Obama Controversies#Birth Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011,<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''.</ref> a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''[[Fox News]]''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2014/02/obama-longform.jpg Certificate of Live Birth]." Originally ordered by Obama to be posted on ''WhiteHouse.gov'', but it is no longer there.</ref>[[Donald Trump]], who had been critical of Obama for allowing the divisiveness to linger was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref> and has been credited with bringing final resolution to the issue. The birth certificates of Michelle Robinson, which would disclosure her birth-sex, and the two children which would clarify their birth parentage, however, remain undisclosed.

The following is a synopsis of previous events leading up to the release:

Hillary Clinton top advisor [[Sidney Blumenthal]], and his son, Max Blumenthal, were the origin of the rumors in 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim in order to stir up fear among white Democrats and women, intended for Hillary's benefit.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-islamophobic-crusade/ The Great Islamophobic Crusade], CBSNEWS, December 19, 2010. cbsnews.com</ref> McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher relayed, "Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya."<ref>https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html</ref> Snope's has identified a claim that a 1991 promotional booklet by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, touted Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii" as being true.<ref>http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp</ref>

[[Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign|Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign]] team then began spreading [[Islamophobic]] rumors that Obama was a [[Muslim]] schooled in a ''madrassa'' as a child in Indonesia.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/bill-clinton-barack-obama-bromance-long-slow-making Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: an alliance long and slow in the making], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080506093354/http://www.stop-obama.org/?page_id=23 Who is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?] Mission Statement, stop-obama.org</ref> A group registered as People United Means Action (PUMA) was made up of Hillary Clinton supporters who not only opposed Barack Obama's nomination but also sought to delegitimize his presidency.<ref>https://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> PUMA members charged that the media directed [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]] at Clinton during the 2008 primary campaign and expressed anger at [[Democratic Party]] leaders' failure to speak out or otherwise respond appropriately.

Hillary Clinton had received a majority of votes in the 2008 Democratic primaries and PUMA felt the [[Superdelegate]]s robbed Hillary of the nomination.

'''Retribution killings'''

Obama transformed the Bush administration War on Terror from a preventative measure against terrorism to a cry for vengeance, mob bloodlust, and retribution killings which spawned a fresh, new, and larger cycle of violence.

On May 1, 2011, Obama misled the public when he announced <ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''White House''.</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf1SLhNoUNY Nobel Prize Winner with a kill list].</ref> that Osama bin Laden was "killed in a firefight" after a U.S. special operations group infiltrated a compound in [[Abbottabad raid|Abottobad]], Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''The New York Times''. "[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''[[NPR]]''. "[https://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]."</ref> Attacks, murders, and kidnappings of Americans have since escalated as reprisals for bin Laden's death. [[Al Qaeda]], once broken and on the run, operates openly as the jihad has now become global. Relations with Pakistan, a longtime ally throughout the Cold War and War on Terror, became strained. The government of Pakistan denied White House claims it allowed Americans to kill Muslims on its territory.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[https://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''Fox News''.</ref> For all his duplicity and criticism of the War on Terror, Obama experienced only a temporary blip in approval ratings.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[https://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[https://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref><ref>''[[CBS News]]/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref>

An NBC investigation revealed Obama was informed of bin Laden's whereabouts one full year before he attempted to use it as an election year issue. NBC further reported that there was no "firefight" at all, contradicting what the president told the nation.<ref>[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3077864/NBC-investigatin-says-bama-DID-edit-role-Pakistan-killing-Bin-Laden-change-facts-credit.html NBC investigation claims Obama knew where bin Laden was ONE YEAR before 2011 raid and backs Seymour Hersh's claim Pakistan intelligence hid al-Qaeda chief], [[Daily Mail ]]</ref> As early as the day after bin Laden was executed, it was learned bin Laden was not armed in the alleged "firefight" that Obama claimed took place.

'''Defends Mohammad'''

After the [[Benghazi terrorist attack]] which his administration knowingly and fraudulently blamed on the creator of an irreverent YouTube video critical of the founder of Islam, Obama made a speech at the UN in which he said, {{Cquote|The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.<ref>https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly</ref>}}
Four Americans died in the terrorist action intended to commemorate the [[9/11 attack]]s. The attack occurred on the US Consulate at Benghazi, part of the territory of the United States. Administration officials did nothing to repel the attack in progress while huddling to discuss the domestic political ramifications for the upcoming presidential election, less than two months away. The creator of the video was jailed on bogus charges unrelated to the video. In 2015, a series of terrorist attacks in France, Denmark and the United States claimed the lives of at least 15 people with dozens injured, including security and police officers, motivated by Muslim extremists defending what, in their view were, unflattering depictions of the founder of Islam, [[Mohammad]].

'''Voting irregularities'''

According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [https://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''[[National Review Online]]''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has [[Politico]]'s Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart.com'' Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [https://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''[[Politico]]''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include [[The Blaze]]'s Billy Hallowell,<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref> [[Breitbart News Network|Breitbart]]'s Joel Pollack, [[Human Events]]' Erick Erickson,<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''[[Human Events]]''.</ref> Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick,<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''[[Newsbusters]]''.</ref> Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com,<ref>Rick Moran. [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> and various writers at [[Discover the Networks]] (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''[[Discover the Networks]]''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''[[Breitbart.com]]''.</ref>

'''"You didn't build that"'''===
{{main|You didn't build that}}
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama attacked [[capitalism]] in a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>[https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia], White House</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

'''Results'''

On November 6, 2012 Barack Obama won reelection with 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/ 2012 Presidential Election], Politico</ref> Obama received 51% of the popular vote (65,899,660 votes) to Romney's 47% (60,932,152 votes).<ref>[https://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012presgeresults.pdf Official 2012 Presidential General Election Results], [[Federal Election Commission]]</ref>

==2009–2017: Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
The [[liberal claptrap]] that elected Obama seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama had millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them were fake.<ref>Jackson, David (August 24, 2012). [http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_ "Obama has millions of fake Twitter followers"]. USA Today website/The Oval blog. See [[USA Today]].</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact, he relied almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Five years into Obama's presidency the number of people holding jobs still was 3 million below the all-time high of 138 million<ref>The effectiveness of [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|Stimulus]] and deficits: [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112811 Job growth under President Obama's first term;] Source: [[United States Department of Labor]].</ref> workers – despite an increase of 10 million people in population over the same period of time.<ref>[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112809 U.S. Population growth during Obama's first four years in office.] Source: [[U.S. Census Bureau]].</ref> Despite the "Hope and Change" rhetoric, from 2007 to 2017, the rate of Americans ages 10 to 24 who died by [[suicide]] rose by 56 percent, from 6.8 deaths per 100,000 persons to 10.6.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/why-has-there-been-a-56-percent-increase-in-suicide-among-young-americans-in-just-10-years/</ref> Under Obama and Senate Democrats<ref>The Democrat-controlled Senate did not propose, vote on, or pass a budget for nearly five years. [https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/23/politics/senate-budget-bill/index.html Senate passes its first budget proposal in four years,] Ted Barrett and Alison Harding, CNN, March 23, 2013.</ref> budget management, the United States suffered its largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''[[Congressional Budget Office]]''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''[[Congressional Budget Office]]''.</ref> in history and its credit-worthiness downgraded from [[Standard and Poor's]]. Obama assured Americans that unemployment would not rise above 8% if his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted, however, it rose and stagnated in the 8-10% range<ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref>[[United States Bureau of Labor Statistics]]. [https://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''[[United States Department of Labor]]''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref> for the entirety of his first term.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged [[radical left]]ists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [https://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''[[Politico]]''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

Obama appointed numerous former communists and [[Red diaper baby|red diaper babies]] to important administration positions.<ref>McQuillan, Karin (June 3, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/barack-obama-populated-the-us-government-with-communists Barack Obama populated the US government with communists]. ''LifeSiteNews'' (from the ''American Thinker''). Retrieved June 4, 2019.</ref> He abused his presidential power several times during his presidency.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (June 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/12/pollak-joe-biden-democrats-loved-obamas-abuses-of-presidential-power/ Pollak: Joe Biden, Democrats Loved Obama’s Abuses of Presidential Power]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 12, 2019.</ref>

===Domestic policy===
Obama's economic [[stimulus]] package in response to the [[Crash of 2008]] took seven years to return [[unemployment]] to historically acceptable levels. Economic growth remained below 2.0% throughout his two terms as poverty and income inequality increased.

Obama sought to end the "schoolhouse-to-jailhouse pipeline" by bribing public school districts through grants for not having law enforcement authorities arrest students for arrestable offenses – this policy led to a major school shooting in Florida over a year after he left office.<ref>Multiple references:
*Richardson, Valerie (March 5, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/nikolas-cruz-avoided-police-scrutiny-help-obama-po/ Obama policies to end ‘schoolhouse-to-jailhouse pipeline’ helped keep Nikolas Cruz off police radar]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
*Sperry, Paul (March 1, 2018). [https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html Behind Cruz's Florida Rampage, Obama's School-Leniency Policy]. ''RealClear Investigations''. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
*Evans, M. Catharine (February 26, 2018). [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/how_federal_funding_kept_nikolas_cruz_from_getting_arrested_and_unable_to_purchase_firearms.html How federal funding kept Nikolas Cruz from getting arrested and unable to purchase firearms]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved March 5, 2018.</ref>

Under Barack Obama's leadership, an Inspector General appointed by Obama discovered, for the first time in history, that the top two personnel appointed by Obama to head the [[FBI]] had both violated the law.<ref>https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/09/indicting-a-sandwich/</ref> Additionally, the Obama Administration prosecuted more whistleblowers as spies than other administrations.<ref>Mora, Edwin (October 3, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/03/flashback-obamas-war-on-whistleblowers-more-prosecuted-as-spies-than-ever-before/ Flashback–‘Obama’s War on Whistleblowers’: More Prosecuted as Spies than Ever Before]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved October 3, 2019.</ref>

====Obamacare: 8 years of stagnant growth====
[[File:CRIMINALS-600x400.jpg|right|350px|thumb|President Obama and [[Chuck Schumer]] with Democrat megadonor and convicted [[rape|rapist]] [[Harvey Weinstein]]. <ref>https://usbacklash.org/harvey-weinstein-caught-on-recorded-nypd-phone-sting-telling-his-sexual-assault-victim-it-wont-happen-again/</ref> Schumer, who shepherded Obamacare through Congress, later called it a mistake.<ref>https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/chuck-schumer-passing-obamacare-in-2010-was-a-mistake/449700/</ref> ]]
{{main article|Obamacare}}
Not wanting the [[Financial crisis of 2008]] "to go to waste," America embarked on a grand socialist experiment. Thanks to "stupidity of the American voter" in the words of the bill's author, Obama passed his signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on March 10, 2010. Also known as Obamacare. In keeping with his progressive ideals, the bill used coercive measures to force Americans to buy insurance they didn't want or need.

The employer mandate – the requirement that employers pay 50% of a workers insurance – held down new job creation and wages. Overall [[GDP]] growth barely exceeded 1% throughout Obama's years, while population continued to grow at a 2.5% rate, thus steadily impoverishing the nation as a whole.

The act originated in the Democrat-controlled House, was amended and passed the Senate just prior to Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]]'s death with no Republicans and 44 Democrats voting to oppose. 60 Democrats in total lost their seats afterward in the 2010 Midterms.

In what was construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill if given the chance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English}}</ref> After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the Democratic [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

The [[individual mandate]] required everyone to purchase health care insurance or suffer punitive measures, with the typical [[Marxist]] provisions for exemptions and transfer payments from taxpayers to protected classes of Democrat voters. The individual mandate was upheld by the [[Supreme Court]] with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] – himself the victim of Obama era [[FISA abuse]] – casting the tie-breaking vote.

The forced transfer of wealth from job creation to healthcare (including illegal immigrants) impoverished the country and left a generation of younger Obama supporters unemployed or underemployed.

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]</ref><ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]</ref><ref>[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]</ref><ref>[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]</ref>]]

{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=Washington Post.[[Newsweek]] Interactive Co. LLC|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=https://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=[[New York Post]]|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=[[Heritage Foundation]]|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''[[The Blaze]]''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=[[Forbes]]|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''[[Ludwig von Mises Institute]]''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. [[Heritage Foundation|The Heritage Network]].</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220 Obamacare: Unemployment You Can Believe In], [[Human Events]]</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. [[Heritage Foundation|The Heritage Network]].</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 19). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/03/19/mad-money-cramer-health-care-passage-will-topple-stock-market 'Mad Money' Cramer: Health Care Passage 'Will Topple the Stock Market']. ''[[Newsbusters]]''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[https://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession."<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176 Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future]</ref>

According to conservative investigative journalist [[Peter Schweizer]], Obama weaponized the regulatory process to help his friends buy businesses that had been devalued through Obama Administration policies.<ref>Kraychik, Robert (March 20, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/20/smash-grab-schweizer-explains-how-obama-weaponized-regulations-enrich-buddies/ ‘Smash and Grab’: Schweizer Explains How Obama Weaponized Regulations to Enrich His Buddies]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 20, 2018.</ref>

'''Stimulus'''
{{See also|Recovery Summer}}
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass a sweeping Stimulus package<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1).<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''[[Library of Congress]]''. "[https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''[[IRS]]''.</ref> The report of the Congressional Budget Office mandated by law stated that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his promise of bipartisanship,<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''[[Washington Times]]''.</ref> the bill passed the House 244-188 on January 28, 2009, with 11 Democrats voting with the entire Republican caucus against,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of [[Backdoor spending authority#Backdoor tax expenditures|backdoor tax expenditures]]<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest direct [[new spending]] on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming millions of Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate his accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''[[Fox News]]''.</ref>

'''[[Sequestration]]'''

According to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning journalist [[Bob Woodward]] of the ''[[Washington Post]]'', Obama misled the American people in a Presidential debate only two weeks before the 2012 election when he said, "The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,”<ref>[http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-22/opinions/37238840_1_jack-lew-treasury-secretary-rob-nabors Obama’s sequester deal-changer,] By Bob Woodward, ''Washington Post'', February 22, 2013.</ref> when in fact his chief budget negotiator and current Chief of Staff, [[Jack Lew]], made a call to Democrat [[Harry Reid]] at 2:30 pm on July 27, 2011 with the proposal after clearing it with Obama,<ref>[https://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/fact-check-woodward-wrote-that-obama-administration-proposed-sequester/ Fact-check: Woodward wrote that Obama administration proposed sequester]. [[The Daily Caller]]</ref> as fully documented in Woodward's book, ''The Price of Politics''. Federal Reserve Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]] warned of immediate jobloss of about 750,000 jobs – about the same level as under George W. Bush<ref>[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109262 Monthly Jobloss under George W. Bush, Jan 2007 - Jan 2009]. See also [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109266 Initial Unemployment Claims] over the same period, annualized. Source: [[U.S. Department of Labor]], Bureau of Labor Statistics.</ref> – if Obama's budget and economic plans were allowed to take effect.<ref>[https://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/bernanke-burden-recovery/ Bernanke: Spending cuts add 'significant' burden to recovery,] By Annalyn Kurtz, CNN February 26, 2013.</ref>

Woodward, who's reporting on [[Watergate]] is credited with toppling the administration of [[Richard Nixon]], told Wolf Blitzer of CNN he was told by a senior White House official he'd regret talking about the President Obama's positions on the sequester.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2 Bob Woodward: White House Threatened Me On Sequester,] businessinsider.com</ref>

'''Spreading poverty and raising the debt'''

Following the 2011 debt ceiling standoff between Obama and House Republicans,<ref name=Swann-Aug>{{cite web|url=https://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8 |title=United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered to 'AA+' on Political Risks and Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative |publisher=[[Standard and Poor's]] |date=August 5, 2011 |accessdate=April 3, 2013}}</ref> the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''[[U.S. Census Bureau]]''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large, his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [https://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the country saddled with an $18 trillion [[national debt]] and climbing.<ref>During Obama's first two years in office, the rate of new U.S. federal debt added per year to its total tripled the rate of new debt accumulated by Bush to place the U.S. on a war footing, and during Obama's first six years in office, the total National Debt has nearly doubled ($7.5 trillion added). See [[National Debt]].</ref> One of his most well-known tactics was blaming someone else, such as George W. Bush, for all his failures instead of taking responsibility. Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2010 with no national consensus or [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why a net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal.<ref>[http://cbo.gov/publication/43471 Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act], Congressional Budget Office</ref>

During Obama's presidency, the national debt nearly doubled, going from $10.6 trillion to $19.9 trillion.<ref>Meyer, Ali (January 21, 2018). [https://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-leaves-office-debt/ Obama Leaves Office Having Added $9.3 Trillion to Debt]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved May 16, 2018.</ref>

====Illegal immigration====
[[File:Obama detention.jpg|right|300px|thumb|A U.N. report cited Obama for holding 100,000 children in cages.<ref>https://qz.com/1291470/photos-immigrant-children-detained-at-the-placement-center-in-2014/</ref><ref>https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-outlets-retract-story-claiming-trump-administration-has-detained-100000-children-in-migration-related-us-detention_3151966.html</ref>]]
The Obama Administration was weak on [[illegal immigration]]. It established the [[Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals]] program (DACA)<ref>Munro, Neil (July 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/21/daca-seven-facts-obamas-amnesty-decree/ DACA: Seven Facts About Obama’s Amnesty Decree]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Nolte, John (September 5, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2017/09/05/14-things-msm-wont-tell-daca/ 14 Things the MSM Won’t Tell You About DACA]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Klein, Aaron (September 3, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/03/obama-administration-usurped-constitution-bypassed-congress-grant-de-dacto-amnesty-dreamers/ How the Obama Administration Bypassed Congress to Grant De Facto Amnesty to Young Illegal Aliens]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.</ref> in 2012, which gave protection and work permits (jobs which could have gone to American citizens) to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. In his 2013 memoir, liberal Democrat U.S. Representative [[Luis Gutiérrez]], an ally of Obama on immigration issues, stated that Obama did not believe that DACA was legally possible until he enacted it.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (September 5, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/05/luis-gutierrez-daca-2013-obama-said-illegal/ Luis Gutiérrez on DACA in 2013: Obama Said It Was Illegal]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 6, 2017.</ref> The Obama Administration was able to give green cards to about 40,000 of those DACA illegals.<ref>Munro, Neil (September 1, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/01/daca-backdoor-granted-green-cards-45000-illegals/ 45,000 Illegals Using DACA Backdoor to Get Green Cards]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.</ref><ref>Binder, John (September 26, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/26/feds-confirm-40k-illegal-aliens-shielded-by-daca-already-given-amnesty/ Feds Confirm 40K Illegal Aliens Shielded by DACA Already Given Amnesty]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 26, 2017.</ref> Additionally, it was reported the administration let 2.2 million deportable illegal immigrants, including 400,000 with criminal convictions, remain on the streets,<ref>Price, Bob (April 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/22/report-ice-failures-under-obama-administration-leave-more-than-2-2-million-supervised-aliens-on-streets/ REPORT: ICE Failures Under Obama Administration Leave More Than 2.2 Million ‘Supervised’ Aliens on Streets]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> while releasing 68,000 with criminal records in 2013 alone.<ref>Mass, Warren (April 1, 2014). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/17963-obama-administration-releases-68-000-illegal-immigrant-criminals Obama Administration Releases 68,000 Illegal Immigrant Criminals]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 8, 2018.</ref> He nearly doubled the number of illegal immigrant juveniles with the EB-4 visa, which gave them legal status.<ref>Binder, John (May 30, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/30/obama-nearly-doubled-number-juvenile-illegal-aliens-given-amnesty-says-expert/ Obama Nearly Doubled Number of Juvenile Illegal Aliens Given Amnesty, Says Expert]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 30, 2017.</ref> The Administration "administratively closed" up to 200,000 deportation cases, meaning those illegal immigrants were free to go where they wanted in the U.S.<ref>Bedard, Paul (August 28, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/200000-deportation-cases-quietly-closed-under-obama/article/2632724 200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 28, 2017.</ref> The administration also obstructed deportation cases<ref>Bedard, Paul (October 9, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-memo-shows-obama-team-obstructed-deportation-cases/article/2636910 Group: Memo shows Obama team obstructed deportation cases]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved October 9, 2017.</ref> and blocked 550,000 illegals from deportation.<ref>Bedard, Paul (December 6, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-blocked-deportation-of-550000-illegals-more-than-atlantas-population/article/2642694 Obama blocked deportation of 550,000 illegals, more than Atlanta's population]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 6, 2017.</ref> The Obama Administration issued 140,000 U visas, which are given to illegal immigrants who testify against criminals in court and allow them to eventually gain citizenship, massively expanding the program.<ref>Munro, Neil (June 27, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/27/u-vsa-becomes-backdoor-amnesty-for-200000-plus/ Obama Backdoor Amnesty Provided ‘U visas’ For 140,000 Illegal Aliens]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 28, 2017.</ref> The Obama Administration's failure to close an immigration loophole caused over 250,000 illegal minors to be separated from their parents,<ref>Binder, John (June 19, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/19/immigration-loophole-separated-more-than-quarter-million-child-border-crossers-under-obama/ Obama’s Inaction on Immigration Loophole Separated More Than Quarter Million Child Border Crossers]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 19, 2018.</ref><ref>Spiering, Charlie (June 21, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/21/obama-criticizes-trump-for-family-separation-but-fails-to-acknowledge-role-in-child-detention/ Obama Criticizes Trump for Family Separation, but Ignores Own Record of Separating Families]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 21, 2018.</ref><ref>Duke, Selwyn (June 22, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/29349-obama-separated-families-and-detained-kids-media-said-nothing Obama Separated Families and Detained Kids, Media Said Nothing]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 22, 2018.</ref> and those minors faced significantly worse conditions in their holding facilities than under the Trump Administration, which also took tougher action.<ref>Price, Bob (June 20, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/06/20/trump-vs-obama-two-approaches-to-migrant-families-and-minors/ Trump vs. Obama: Two Approaches to Migrant Families and Minors]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 20, 2018.</ref>

In 2014, President Obama announced the [[DAPA]] program, which would have expanded protections from deportation to a total of about 5 million illegal immigrants. This order was blocked by a federal judge,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-obama-immigration-executive-action.html Federal judge temporarily blocks Obama's immigration executive action]. ''Fox News''. February 17, 2015. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> upheld by an appeals court,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/09/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-immigration-plan.html Appeals court rules against Obama immigration plan]. ''Fox News''. November 10, 2015. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> and a split 4–4 Supreme Court ruling upheld the appeals court ruling.<ref>de Vogue, Ariane; Kopan, Tal (June 23, 2016). [https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/ Deadlocked Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan]. ''CNN''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref>

Under President Obama, [[Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] released 564 convicted sex offender illegal immigrants, in many cases because various countries refused to accept them back.<ref>Price, Bob (May 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/22/obamas-ice-released-nearly-600-sex-offenders-countries-refused-deportation/ Obama’s ICE Released Nearly 600 Sex Offenders after Countries Refused Deportation]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 22, 2017.</ref> In May 2017, a whistleblower revealed that the Obama Administration knowingly let illegal immigrant [[MS-13]] gang members into the country.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (May 24, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/24/whistleblower-dhs-knowingly-let-ms-13-gang-members/ Obama admin knew gang members were part of illegal immigrant surge: Whistleblower]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 24, 2017.</ref><ref>Saavedra, Ryan (May 24, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/24/obama-let-admitted-ms-13-members-whistleblower-says/ Obama Let in Admitted MS-13 Members, Whistleblower Says]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 25, 2017.</ref> In January 2018, the DHS inspector general reported that the Obama Administration did not identify and arrest terrorist aliens classified as "highest risk" due to them not being screened.<ref>Mora, Edwin (January 11, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/01/11/ig-obamas-ice-missed-opportunities-arrest-high-risk-terror-linked-aliens/ IG: Obama’s ICE ‘Missed Opportunities’ to Arrest High-Risk Terror-Linked Aliens]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 13, 2018.</ref><ref>Harrington, Elizabeth (January 16, 2018). [https://freebeacon.com/national-security/obamas-ice-didnt-follow-procedure-for-checking-illegal-immigrants-ties-to-terrorism/ Obama’s ICE Didn’t Follow Procedure For Checking Illegal Immigrants’ Ties to Terrorism]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved January 16, 2018.</ref>

The Obama Administration moved illegal migrant teens across state lines so they could have [[abortion]]s.<ref>Freiburger, Calvin (October 24, 2018). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-admin-moved-illegal-immigrant-teens-across-state-lines-for-abortions Obama admin moved illegal immigrant teens across state lines for abortions, emails reveal]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved October 24, 2018.</ref> Its policies led to an increase in illegal immigration.<ref>Munro, Neil (May 23, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/23/senate-hearing-obamas-daca-and-flores-orders-spiked-illegal-migration/ Senate Hearing: Obama’s DACA and Flores Orders Spiked Illegal Migration]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 24, 2019.</ref>

After assuming office in 2017, the [[Trump Administration]] made [[Donald Trump achievements|a large change in its policies]] towards illegal immigration compared to the Obama Administration.<ref>Llorente, Elizabeth (April 17, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/17/sessions-immigration-policies-mark-big-change-from-obama-policies.html Sessions' immigration policies mark big change from Obama policies]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 18, 2017.</ref> Secretary of Homeland Security [[John Kelly]] of the Trump Administration strongly criticized the Obama Administration for its failures regarding illegal immigration and national security.<ref>Munro, Neil (April 18, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/18/dhs-kelly-sacred-duty-protect-america/ DHS Kelly Slams Obama’s Policies, Proclaims ‘Sacred Duty’ To Protect America]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 18, 2017.</ref><ref>Mora, Edwin (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/21/dhs-chief-obama-nothing-truly-secure-border/ DHS Chief: Obama Did ‘Nothing’ to ‘Truly’ Secure Border]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref>

'''Rising migration levels'''

Because of the Obama Administration's [[open borders]] policies, total migration into the U.S. in 2016 and 2017 reached record high levels, at 1.75 million people per year.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (October 31, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/31/total-immigration-us-ties-all-time-record/ Total immigration to U.S. ties all-time record]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved November 1, 2018.</ref><ref>Munro, Neil (October 31, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2018/10/31/obama-migration-record-almost-one-migrant-for-every-two-graduates-in-2016/ Obama’s Migration Record: Almost One Migrant for Every Two Graduates in 2016]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 1, 2018.</ref>

====Soft-on-crime====
The Obama Administration failed to act upon warnings by federal drug investigators and state officials about the growing problem of illegal fentanyl as the drug killed 70,000 people between 2013 and 2017.<ref name="SlowFentanyl"/> In fact, the administration softened its enforcement against "low-level nonviolent drug offenses."<ref name="SlowFentanyl">Llorente, Elizabeth (March 13, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-administration-slow-to-answer-early-alarms-about-fentanyl-report Obama administration slow to answer early alarms about fentanyl: report]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 13, 2019.</ref><ref>Hayward, John (March 14, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/03/14/obama-administration-refused-declare-public-health-emergency-fentanyl/ Obama Administration Refused to Declare Public Health Emergency for Fentanyl]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 14, 2019.</ref>

====War on police====
:{{See also|Riots during the Obama Administration}}
Cop killings increased dramatically in Obama's final years.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/police-killed-line-of-duty-increase-2016/</ref> But the groundwork was laid in the early months of Obama's presidency when he made a televised statement that the police "acted stupidly". Obama gave encouragement to [[Black Lives Matter]] and the [[Antifa]] terrorist organization.

====Attacks on Christian religious freedom====
[[File:Schlafly phyllis.jpg|thumbnail|right|140px|[[Phyllis Schlafly]]'s book ''No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom'' documents Obama's attack on religious freedom.<ref>[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/obamas-attack-on-religious-freedom-its-worse-than-you-think Obama’s Attack on Religious Freedom: It’s Worse Than You Think], ''Crises Magazine''</ref>]]
When first running for office Obama angered religious conservatives with his comment about working-class voters in old industrial towns. Obama said, "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008 Obama angers midwest voters with guns and religion remark], The Guardian</ref>

The Obama administration has been widely criticized for his policies which encroach on religious freedom in areas such as: health care, freedom to dissent on matters relating to the [[homosexual agenda]], religious freedom in the military and religious freedom in other spheres of American life.<ref>
*[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/obamas-attack-on-religious-freedom-its-worse-than-you-think Obama’s Attack on Religious Freedom: It’s Worse Than You Think], ''Crises Magazine''
*[http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/obamas-hypocrisy-on-religious-freedom/ Obama’s Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom]
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/15/us-military-losing-christians-because-of-hostile-c/?page=all U.S. military ‘hostile’ to Christians under Obama; morale, retention devastated], ''Washington Times''
*[http://www1.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2015/10/08/senator-seeks-answers-from-obama-on-religious-freedom Obama and Religious Freedom], ''CBN News''
</ref>

In addition, the Obama administration has been criticized for promoting religious freedom for [[Islam|Muslims]] and restricting religious freedom for Christians.<ref>[https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/10/29/the-obama-administration-religious-freedoms-fro-american-muslims-not-american-christians-n2072727 The Obama Administration: Religious Freedoms for American Muslims, Not American Christians], Townhall</ref>

====Environment and energy====
{{See also|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/ Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''The New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref> The Administration spend vast sums of taxpayer money on futile environmentalist efforts, including $4.1 million on a study that attempted to find a connection between pollution and obesity.<ref>Bleau, Hannah (June 15, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/15/report-obama-administration-spent-over-4-million-on-study-aimed-to-link-pollution-to-childhood-obesity/ Report: Obama Administration Spent over $4 Million on Study Aimed to Link Pollution to Childhood Obesity]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 16, 2019.</ref>

The Obama Administration enacted many environmental regulations and used scientific studies to back up the supposed need for the regulations, but after the [[Trump Administration]] began undoing the Obama-era rules, many of the merits of the studies were found to be dubious.<ref>Lucas, Fred (December 26, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/26/junk-science-studies-behind-obama-regulations-under-fire.html 'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2017.</ref>

====Labor law====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the [[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)|Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act]] – effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

'''9/11 responders'''

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 2, 2011|work=wNYC|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsors agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

'''Diversity over safety'''

During the Obama Administration, the [[Federal Aviation Administration]] issued new hiring rules for air traffic controllers which placed achieving diversity over ensuring that new employees were talented, educated, and even knew what they were doing.<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/02/obama-era-faa-hiring-rules-place-diversity-ahead-airline-safety-attorney-tells-tucker-carlson.html Obama-era FAA hiring rules place diversity ahead of airline safety, attorney tells Tucker Carlson]. ''Fox News''. June 2, 2018. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Duke, Selwyn (June 5, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/29215-danger-in-the-skies-obama-dumbed-down-air-traffic-controllers-with-diversity-rules Danger in the Skies: Obama Dumbed-down Air-traffic Controllers With “Diversity” Rules]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Haverluck, Michael F. (June 3, 2018). [https://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2018/06/03/obama-put-diversity-over-safety-at-faa Obama put diversity over safety at FAA]. ''OneNewsNow''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Poor, Jeff (June 2, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/06/02/aviation-attorney-to-tucker-carlson-faa-is-putting-diversity-ahead-of-safety/ Aviation Attorney to Tucker Carlson: FAA Is Putting Diversity Ahead of Safety]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.</ref>

====Meeting with an atheist group====
:''See also:'' [[Atheism and American politics]]
The Obama administration became the first administration to met with an [[Atheism|atheist]] group. It met with the Secularism Coalition for America which is a coalition which represents the [[American Atheists]], the American [[Secular Humanism|Humanist]] Association, and the Military Association of Atheists and [[Freethought|Freethinkers]].

According to the ''USA Today'', the group met with the White House officials to "discuss problems that they believe are fueled by religion."<ref name="content.usatoday.com">[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/02/atheists-meet-with-white-house-officials/1#.VypYTzEn_7Y Atheists meet with White House officials], USA Today</ref> Among the issues the group discussed were the issues of "military proselytizing" by [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] Christian members of the military and faith-based initiatives<ref name="content.usatoday.com"/>

====Gender politics====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated with President Clinton and passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while barring openly gay [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=[[Washington Times]]|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, "(Obama's) a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=[[Time Magazine]]|publisher=Time Inc.|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law – it passed a day later by a vote of 250–175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65–31.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=[[The Guardian]]|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref> The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/>

On the day Rev. [[Jim Jones]] left for [[Jonestown]], [[Harvey Milk]] wrote to Jones and said "my name is cut into stone in support of you - and your people."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=24taDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT254&lpg=PT254&dq=%22my+name+is+cut+into+stone+in+support+of+you+-+and+your+people.%22&source=bl&ots=ynq76x7v9F&sig=ACfU3U1baSHsO8-hnZ5MVbDiNeBbUn9TbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz8vLNi6XgAhWG1IMKHfWVCZQQ6AEwB3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22my%20name%20is%20cut%20into%20stone%20in%20support%20of%20you%20-%20and%20your%20people.%22&f=false Harvey Milk: His Lives and Death], Lillian Faderman, Yale University Press, May 22, 2018.</ref> President Obama honored Milk posthumously with the [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] on the anniversary on his death.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKOv8HA76o President Obama Honors Harvey Milk With Presidential Medal of Freedom], youtube.</ref>

====Civil service corruption and the revolving door====
Obama criticized the "revolving door" of government and business.<ref>"We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely, and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave." [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-welcoming-senior-staff-and-cabinet-secretaries-white-house REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN WELCOMING SENIOR STAFF AND CABINET SECRETARIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE,] January 21, 2009. [[White House]]</ref> After appointing [[Peter Orszag]] his first Budget Director to dole out the stimulus cash, Orszag resigned to become Citigroup's Vice Chairman of Global Banking. Citigroup was the recipient of $476 billion in [[bailout]] money - more than any other bank - after the disastrous [[Financial crisis of 2008]].<ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/03/citibank_received_more_bailout.html Citigroup Received More Bailout Money Than Any Other Bank,] By Nitasha Tiku, 3/16/11.</ref> Before the bailout, Orszag's expert opinion of the chances of a mortgage meltdown was 1 in 500,000.<ref>[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/stiglitzrisk.pdf Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard,] by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Jonathan M. Orszag and Peter R. Orszag. Fannie Mae Papers, Volume 1, Issue 2, March 2002, Conclusion p.6.</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Obama and the media.jpg|right|250px|thumb|[[Ben Rhodes]] is the Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, and Deputy National Security Advisor to [[Susan Rice]]. Rhodes is also the brother of David Rhodes, President of CBS News.]]
Obama launched a global anti-Christian jihad with his support for [[al-Qaeda]] and the [[Islamic State]] to overthrow the governments of Libya and Syria. The Black African [[slave trade]] was revived in Libya after Obama removed [[Muammar Gaddafi]], an ally in the [[War on Terror]].<ref>[https://womensenews.org/story/international-policyunited-nations/150527/un-sex-violence-envoy-focusing-syria-iraq UN Sex Violence Envoy: Focusing on Syria, Iraq]</ref><ref>[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower], Heritage Foundation</ref> Obama, who was raised a Muslim<ref>[https://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/was_obama_blood.html Was Obama bloodied by madrassa story?]</ref><ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/11952/obama-muslim-childhood Obama's Muslim Childhood]</ref> and is not a descendant of slaves, criticized Christians and the Crusades as reports of thousands of women and girls being captured, sold, and raped flooded in.<ref>[https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/579393/ISIS-Michelle-Obama-prostitute-justifies-raping-slave-girls-Koran ISIS calls Michelle Obama a PROSTITUTE and justifies raping slave girls with the KORAN]</ref><ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-speech-at-prayer-breakfast-called-offensive-to-christians/2015/02/05/6a15a240-ad50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html Critics pounce after Obama talks Crusades, slavery at prayer breakfast], Washington Post</ref> Additionally, Obama overemphasized political correctness in U.S. national security policy, something disliked by CIA officials.<ref>Dorman, Sam (November 5, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/media/book-cia-staff-obama-white-house CIA staff complained about Obama White House's political correctness, new book claims]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 5, 2019.</ref>

The number of jihadis worldwide has grown by a factor of 4 or 5 at least, since Obama took the reins of power as Commander-in-Chief.<ref>The number of Islamic extremists susceptible to jihadist recruitment during the George W. Bush administration worldwide was estimated at 12,000; the Islamic State alone by 2015 had estimates of a standing army of jihadis as high as 70,000 to 200,000.</ref> Remarkably, the ''[[New York Times]]'' was critical of Obama's incessant boasting about the killing of [[Osama bin Laden|bin Laden]].<ref>Baker, Peter and Shear, Michael D. (April 27, 2012). [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/critics-pounce-on-obamas-trumpeting-of-bin-laden-death.html "Obama trumpets killing of Bin Laden, and critics pounce"]. ''The New York Times'' website. See [[The New York Times]].</ref> With the complete disengagement of American troops from [[Iraq]] and the assassination of [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[Islamic State]] arose and recruitment of global [[jihad]]is multiplied exponentially.

Obama entered his second term mocking and ridiculing the idea that Russia was America's prime geo-strategic competitor; by the closing days of his presidency, Obama was in a panic fanning the flames of a Third Red Scare. Vladimir Putin and Russia had thoroughly embarrassed Barack Obama on the world stage as Obama withdrew America from its traditional role of global leadership and repudiated the idea of [[American exceptionalism]]. Respect for America degenerated in the world as issues such as transexual bathrooms occupied more of Obama's time and attention than the 12 million homeless refugees Obama had driven from their homes in his failed "[[Arab Spring]]" policy. Having been thoroughly rebuked politically with the election of Donald Trump, as a [[lameduck]] Obama attempted to coverup [[DNC]] scandals uncovered by [[Wikileaks]] by scapegoating Vladimir Putin and fostering an atmosphere of paranoia about Russia, the future, and a Trump presidency.

'''Commander-in-chief'''

As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied by drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama similarly stayed the course or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011, Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''Washington Post''.</ref>
From the Boston Globe:
<blockquote>
'The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.'
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
'The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast.' <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''[[The Boston Globe]]''.</ref>
</blockquote>
A commentator says:
<blockquote>
'Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel.' <ref>[http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.]</ref>
</blockquote>
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

'''National Defense'''

President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012.</ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''[[Human Rights Watch]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref><ref>[https://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''[[Library of Congress]]'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

The Obama Administration accidentally allowed the chipmaker AMD to ship sensitive and important technology to China, despite the significant national security risks.<ref>O'Keeffe, Kate; Spegele, Brian (June 27, 2019). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tried-to-stop-china-acquiring-world-class-chips-china-got-them-anyway-11561646798 How a Big U.S. Chip Maker Gave China the ‘Keys to the Kingdom’]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved June 29, 2019.</ref>

'''Escalates Afghan conflict'''
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
American deaths in [[Afghanistan]] more than doubled in Obama's first few years compared with the preceding eight years of George Bush <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service'''.</ref> as he increased troop strength for no discernible purpose and to "win" unstated objectives. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] and forced [[regime change]] without Congressional authorization in violation of the post-Nixon era reform measure, the [[War Powers Act]].

After he took personal credit for killing [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's successor, [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]] confirmed the [[Benghazi Attack]] which took place on the anniversary of 9/11 and killed more Americans, was motivated by al-Qaeda's desire for revenge.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack], By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN, September 13, 2012.</ref> Bin Laden's death, as Obama's advisers warned, freed up jihadis who swore an oath of allegiance to the 9/11 mastermind to swear allegiance to rival and competing factions. The competing factions advocated the immediate establishment of the Islamic State, rather than after the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy and retaking of Mecca. As was well known, bin Laden always held a controversial and minority position among jihadis on the strategy for global jihad by attacking the United States first. Bin Laden's killing, intended as an election year gimmick, brought Obama no improvement in approval ratings and spawned unprecedented growth in global terror and jihadi recruiting.

Obama needlessly escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=[[PBS]]|language=English}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/>

====Libya and rebirth of the slave trade====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, leader of Libya for 41 years, responded to the violence<ref>[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm There Was No Libyan Peaceful Protest, Just Murderous Gangs and Nic Robertson]</ref> with legitimate steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted to impose [[sanctions]], and later passed a resolution to protect civilians. Obama, without approval from Congress and over the objections of his own National Security staff,<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-libyan-no-fly-zone-means-attacking-libya/ Gates: Libyan no-fly zone means attacking Libya], CBS News</ref> directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Secretary of Defence [[Robert Gates]], National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, and [[White House]] counterterrorism chief [[John O. Brennan]] all opposed the action. Obama later said, "if we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=https://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]], in an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'', suggested this statement was false, writing, "intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=https://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the [[University of Texas]] who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten[ed] civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by ''The New York Times'', which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Gaddafi even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref>[http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.]</ref>
</blockquote>
Gaddafi wrote to Obama and told him he bore no ill will. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 Gaddafi begs Obama to halt 'unjust war' ], [[The Guardian ]]</ref>

'''Syria and Obama's "red line"'''

In 2012, during the [[Syrian Civil War]], President Obama stated that if the Syrian dictator, President [[Bashar al-Assad]] used [[chemical weapon]]s against Syrians, that would be unacceptable and cross a red line. However, after it was confirmed that Assad did use weapons against his people, Obama did practically nothing. He went to Congress to authorize a military strike, but this request was rejected (he had the ability to order a military strike without Congress's approval). Later, the Obama Administration (particularly [[Susan Rice]])<ref name="RiceTakesHeat">Chakraborty, Barnini (April 7, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/susan-rice-obama-colleagues-take-heat-for-past-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html Susan Rice, Obama colleagues take heat for past claims on Syria chemical weapons purge]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.</ref> and the mainstream media<ref>Nash, Charlie (April 7, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/04/07/politifact-pulls-2014-mostly-true-rating-of-john-kerrys-claim-of-eliminating-syrian-chemical-weapons/ PolitiFact Pulls 2014 ‘Mostly True’ Rating of John Kerry’s Claim of Eliminating Syrian Chemical Weapons]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.</ref> claimed they had worked with Syria to remove its chemical weapons. In April 2017, Syria again used chemical weapons against its people, proving their claim wrong.<ref name="RiceTakesHeat"/> The new president, [[Donald Trump]], unlike Obama, quickly ordered a large airstrike against a Syrian airbase.<ref>Griffin, Jennifer; Tomlinson, Lucas (April 7, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/us-missiles-target-syria-airfield-in-response-to-chemical-weapons-attack.html US missiles target Syria airfield in response to chemical weapons attack]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.</ref>

'''Turkey'''

President Obama attempted to overthrow the legitimate government of Turkey, a vital NATO ally. Turkish President [[Recep Erdoğan]] repeatedly warned Obama's support of [[Kurd]]ish forces and [[ISIL]] threatened the NATO alliance. Turkey slowly began establishing closer ties with Russia.

====Hillary Clinton and the FBI's collusion with Russia====
:{{See also|Uranium One bribery scandal}}
Obama and his administration had a weak stance on Russia.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (July 22, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/07/22/pollak-media-let-obama-alums-off-the-hook-on-russia/ Pollak: Media Let Obama Alums off the Hook on Russia]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 22, 2018.</ref> He and Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] tried to "reset" relations with Russia, and he mocked [[Mitt Romney]] for calling Russia the most dangerous geopolitical threat to the U.S. in a 2012 debate. According to Brett Bruen, the White House director of global engagement from 2013 to 2015, the Obama Administration ignored his warnings about Russia.<ref>Morton, Victor (March 26, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/26/brett-bruen-obama-official-says-nsc-slept-his-2014/ Obama official says NSC slept on his 2014 Russia warning]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved March 26, 2018.</ref> Obama criticized president of [[Russia]], [[Vladimir Putin]] for carrying out a referendum for the seizure of [[Crimea]] to Russia.<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-calls-rethinking-crimea-vote Obama calls for a 'rethinking' on Crimea vote]. [[Cybercast News Service]]</ref> After taking office in 2017, [[Donald Trump]] took several actions against Russia that Obama never went so far as to do.<ref>Berger, Judson (December 26, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/26/trump-administration-ends-2017-confronting-russia-after-year-collusion-accusations.html Trump administration ends 2017 confronting Russia after year of collusion accusations]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2017.</ref>

'''Cuba'''

During his presidency, Obama instituted a major détente with the oppressive Communist dictatorship of [[Cuba]], despite its failed leftist governance and human rights violations.<ref>[https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-cuban-detente-1418862551 Obama’s Cuban Detente]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. December 17, 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref><ref>Spetalnick, Matt; Gardner, Timothy (December 13, 2016). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba-whitehouse-idUSKBN1422U6 Obama to press Trump to preserve Cuba detente: White House]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref> In August 2015, the U.S. and Cuba reopened each other's embassies.<ref>Frumin, Aliyah (July 1, 2015). [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-announces-historic-deal-cuba Obama announces historic deal with Cuba]. ''MSNBC''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/14/kerry-in-havana-for-reopening-us-embassy-tough-negotiations-ahead.html Kerry marks opening of US Embassy in Havana, critics rip 'diplomacy for show']. ''Fox News''. August 14, 2015. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref> In September 2016, Obama nominated the first U.S. Ambassador to Cuba in 55 years.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/obama-nominates-first-us-ambassador-to-cuba-in-more-than-45-years.html Obama nominates first US ambassador to Cuba in more than 55 years]. ''Fox News''. September 27, 2016. Retrieved January 15, 2016.</ref> Obama did everything in his power to normalize relations with the failed dictatorship, but the [[United States embargo against Cuba|U.S. embargo against Cuba]] remained in place due to opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress.<ref>Spetalnick, Matt; Marsh, Sarah (October 14, 2016). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-usa-idUSKBN12E1H3 Obama eases restrictions on Cuba, lifts limits on rum and cigars]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref> No one knows the extent of underground bunkers of Soviet-era weapons consisting of [[AK-47]]s and [[MANPAD]]S stockpiled between 1959–1986 when the collective stated foreign policy aims of Cuba and the Soviet Union were armed revolution and violent overthrow of the United States government and the capitalist system. The United States remains unprepared for trade talks and lifting travel restrictions on tourists.

Despite Obama's support for mass immigration and amnesty for those who immigrated illegally, he ended the "wet foot, dry foot" policy that allowed Cuban refugees to legally stay in the U.S.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/12/obama-reportedly-to-scrap-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy-for-cuban-refugees.html Obama announces end to 'wet foot, dry foot' policy for Cuban refugees]. ''Fox News''. January 12, 2017. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref>

Liberal mainstream media regarded Obama's private meetings with the murderous thugs who run Cuba as a breakthrough in relations.

'''Guantanamo Bay'''
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self-imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

Obama ultimately failed to close Guantanamo Bay, although he continually attempted to reduce the number of detained terrorists held at the base, even in the last days of his presidency.<ref>Saxena, V. (January 6, 2017). [http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-to-release-18-hardened-gitmo-terrorists-before-leaving-office/ Obama To Release 18 Hardened Gitmo Terrorists Before Leaving Office]. ''Western Journalism''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref><ref>Ryan, Missy; Tate, Julie (December 28, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-final-detainee-transfer-obamas-guantanamo-policy-takes-its-last-breath/2016/12/28/dfdf8cb2-cd0f-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.62bebcb1f672 With final detainee transfer, Obama’s Guantanamo policy takes its last breath]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref>

====Anti-Israel policies====
Obama has had very poor relations with the conservative [[Israel]]i Prime Minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]], and he disregarded U.S. commitments to the country.<ref>Klein, Aaron (May 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/05/09/klein-obama-accuses-trump-flouting-agreements-ex-prez-just-betraying-israel/ Klein: Obama Accuses Trump Of ‘Flouting’ Agreements, But Ex-Prez Did Just That By Betraying Israel]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 9, 2018.</ref> During the very tight and closely-watched 2015 elections, the Obama Administration attempted to influence the election—in order to elect a leftist government in the nation and defeat Netanyahu—by financing a liberal Israeli political organization.<ref>Klein, Aaron (July 13, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/07/13/israeli-lawmakers-fume-obama-administration-intervention-defeat-netanyahu/ Israeli Lawmakers Fume Over Obama Administration ‘Intervention’ to Defeat Netanyahu]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> Netanyahu decisively won the election, despite opposition from left-wing world leaders such as Obama.<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-claims-victory-as-vote-count-shows-likud-further-ahead/ Netanyahu scores crushing victory in Israeli elections]. ''The Times of Israel''. March 18, 2015. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

On December 23, 2016, Obama broke over 35 years of American policy by abstaining from a UN vote and allowing a blatantly anti-Israel resolution to pass, showing his true anti-Israel stance.<ref name="StrikeAgain"/><ref name="FedUpDrastic"/> On December 28, 2016, just a few weeks before the [[Trump Administration]] was to take office and a few days after the anti-[[Israel]] resolution was adopted, Kerry gave a major 72-minute<ref>Hanchett, Ian (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/28/nbcs-neely-kerry-speech-firing-a-flare-across-israel-he-wanted-to-give-it-for-some-time-but-wh-blocked-it/ NBC’s Neely: Kerry Speech ‘Firing a Flare’ ‘Across Israel’ He Wanted To Give It ‘For Some Time’ But WH Blocked It]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> speech viciously attacking Israel and paying worthless lip-service to American "support" for the nation.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/28/kerry-on-israel-peace-un-resolution/ Kerry Attacks Israeli Government, Defends UN Resolution]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> Israeli Prime Minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] responded harshly but appropriately to the Administration's blatant betrayal.<ref>Key, Pam (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/28/netanyahu-i-must-express-my-deep-disappointment-with-john-kerry-israelis-do-not-need-to-be-lectured/ Netanyahu: ‘I Must Express My Deep Disappointment’ With Kerry — ‘Israelis Do Not Need To Be Lectured’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

Despite these actions, the U.S. House passed a motion on January 5, 2017, condemning Obama's allowing of the UN resolution.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/house-overwhelmingly-votes-to-condemn-un-resolution-on-israel-settlements.html House overwhelmingly votes to condemn UN resolution on Israel settlements]. ''Fox News''. January 5, 2017. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Cortellessa, Eric (January 6, 2017). [https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-house-passes-repudiation-of-un-security-council-resolution-on-israel/ US House passes motion repudiating UN resolution on Israel]. ''The Times of Israel''. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref> Additionally, Republican President-elect [[Donald Trump]] voiced strong support for Israel during this time.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (December 23, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/23/trump-hints-defunding-un-anti-israel-vote/ Trump on UN Anti-Israel Vote: ‘Things Will Be Different After Jan. 20’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Swoyer, Alex (December 29, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/29/trump-im-very-very-strong-on-israel/ Trump: ‘I’m Very, Very Strong on Israel’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref>

Soon before leaving office, Obama bypassed Congress and gave the [[State of Palestine]] $221 million.<ref name="221MLastHours">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/us-quietly-sent-221m-to-palestinians-in-obamas-last-hours.html US quietly sent $221M to Palestinians in Obama's last hours]. ''Fox News''. January 24, 2017. Retrieved January 24, 2017.</ref>

====Pro-Iranian policies====
In contrast to his anti-Israel policies, Obama took a friendly stance toward Iran, helping negotiate the [[Iran nuclear deal]] with the country, something Obama's successor, President Trump, chose to reverse. The Obama Administration actively worked to give Iran access to American banks.<ref>Multiple references:
*Taylor, Guy (June 6, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/6/obama-hid-efforts-to-aid-irans-windfall/ Obama hid efforts to aid Iran's windfall]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*[https://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/politics/report-obama-administration-lied-about-iran-deal Report: Obama administration lied about Iran deal]. ''OneNewsNow'' (from the ''Associated Press''). June 6, 2018. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Edson, Rich (June 6, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/06/obama-administration-allegedly-gave-iran-access-to-us-financial-system.html Obama administration allegedly gave Iran access to US financial system]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 8, 2018.</ref> According to a high-ranking Iranian official in 2018, the Obama Administration granted U.S. citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during the nuclear deal negotiations, including the friends and family of Iranian government leaders.<ref>Irvine, Chris (July 2, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/02/obama-administration-granted-citizenship-to-2500-iranians-during-nuclear-deal-iran-official.html Obama administration granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during nuclear deal: Iran official]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved July 2, 2018.</ref>

An Iranian militia leader who led an attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq in 2019 had been invited to the White House by the Obama Administration in 2011.<ref>Multiple references:
*Nolan, Lucas (December 31, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/12/31/iranian-militia-leader-who-led-raid-u-s-embassy-baghdad-previously-visited-obama-white-house/ Iranian Militia Leader Leading Iraq U.S. Embassy Raid Listed as Obama White House Guest]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
*Singman, Brooke (January 2, 2020). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iraqi-official-spotted-outside-embassy-attack-visited-obama-white-house-in-2011 Iraqi official spotted outside embassy attack visited Obama White House in 2011]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
*Dibble, Madison (January 2, 2020). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-gave-white-house-welcome-to-iran-backed-leader-of-us-embassy-attack-in-baghdad Obama gave White House welcome to Iran-backed leader of US Embassy attack in Baghdad]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
*Boyer, Dave (January 2, 2020). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/2/hadi-al-amiri-leader-us-embassy-siege-iraq-was-gue/ Leader of U.S. Embassy siege in Iraq was guest of Obama at White House]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
*Boyer, Dave (January 3, 2020). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/3/chief-of-iran-backed-embassy-siege-met-with-obama-/ Chief of Iran-backed embassy siege met with Obama, Biden]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved January 3, 2020.</ref>

====Opposition to U.S. sovereignty====
{{See also|War on Sovereignty}}
Preferring international cooperation and equality to American [[sovereignty]] and independence (despite the U.S.'s obviously superior geopolitical position), Obama intentionally reduced American power and strength during his presidency. One of his actions as president was to give up the nation's control of [[Domain name|internet domain name system]] and transfer control over to an international organization in 2016.<ref>Solomon, Howard (October 3, 2016). [https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/new-era-in-internet-governance-starts-as-us-cedes-control-of-domain-name-system/386903 New era in Internet governance starts as US cedes control of domain name system]. ''IT World Canada''. Retrieved October 14, 2016.</ref><ref>Lieberman, Eric (September 24, 2016). [https://dailycaller.com/2016/09/24/obama-admin-wants-to-surrender-us-control-over-internet-to-global-bureaucracy/ Obama Admin Wants To Surrender US Control Over Internet To Global Bureaucracy]. ''The Daily Caller''. Retrieved October 14, 2016.</ref>

Obama also entered the U.S. into the [[Paris climate agreement]] and attempted to have it join the [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]], which was under negotiation. Both of these agreements would have reduced American sovereignty and [[self-governance]].

Obama also endorsed the United Nations 2030 Agenda in 2015, which called for "a 'new universal agenda' for all of humanity" and served as a major step toward a [[one-world government]].<ref>Hohmann, Leo (September 30, 2015). [https://www.wnd.com/2015/09/obama-puts-u-s-on-fast-track-to-world-government/ Obama puts U.S. on 'fast track' to world government]. ''WND''. Retrieved December 26, 2017.</ref>

===Congressional relations===
Obama has maintained tense relations with Congress throughout his term as President. Each of his budgets was voted down, and many of his judicial appointments have not come to a vote. When Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] died on February 13, 2016, Obama made a point of addressing the nation to say that he would nominate a replacement, which drew criticism and rebuke from Republican Senators and Presidential candidates. Obama executive action in areas such as immigration policy drew extensive criticism as infringing upon Congressional legislative powers.

===Scandals===
Obama turned the [[Justice Department]] into a cesspool of corruption.<ref>[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nymagazin.com%2Fen_US%2Fobamagate-si-reforma-fbi-ului-tiberiu-dianu%2F]</ref>

Obama was complicit in the whitewash of Hillary Clinton's email investigation. In fact, Obama himself crafted the language of "careless," reducing the charge of gross negligence punishable by 10 years in prison down to nothing. Obama himself had much to hide; he knew of Hillary's illegal email server. Obama communicated with Hillary on her illegal server at least 30 times, including from the territory of a "hostile foreign power," presumably Russia, where their communication was most certainly hacked.

When the disgraced Obama appointee as FBI director whitewashed the incident by saying Hillary communicated with "a senior government official," it was Obama himself and his complicity in the reckless handling of classified information that Comey was covering up, not just Hillary. Over the course of his presidency, Obama cost taxpayers $35 million to cover his Christmas vacations.<ref>Harper, Jennifer (December 23, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/23/inside-the-beltway-aloha-the-35-million-obama-chri/ Memories of Christmas past: The $35 million Obama travel bill]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 24, 2018.</ref> FBI deputy director [[Andrew McCabe]]'s special counsel [[Lisa Page]] 's sworn congressional testimony confirms that the FBI was acting on orders from the Obama Justice Department to clear Hillary Clinton of [[felon]]ious behavior and violations of the Espionage Act so that she could be nominated as the DNC 2016 presidential candidate.<ref>[https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/03/13/lisa-page-obama-doj-ordered-fbi-not-to-charge-hillary-clinton-no-collusion/ Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Said Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not To Charge Hillary Clinton], [[CBS]], March 13, 2019.</ref>

====Fast and Furious====
[[File:Eric Holder.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Eric Holder]] is the First Attorney General in US history held in [[criminal]] [[Contempt of Congress]]. He resigned in light of the Fast & Furious revelations<ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/fast_and_furious_in_a_rotten_nutshell.html#ixzz27iRBCN28 Fast and Furious in a Rotten Nutshell], Ronald Kolb, ''[[American Thinker]]'', October 7, 2011,</ref> and other scandals.]]
:''Main article:'' '''[[Operation Fast and Furious]]'''
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Mexican drug related gun murders skyrocket during Obama's Fast and Furious campaign<ref>https://archive.is/RyT8w</ref>
|-
| 2006 || 62
|-
| 2007 || 2,837
|-
| 2008 || 6,844
|-
| 2009 || 11,753
|-
| 2010 || 19,546
|-
| 2011 || 24,068
|-
| 2012 || 18,061 (by October 31, 2012)
|-
| 2013 || 23,640 killed in 2013 (through to March 2014)
|}
Before Obama's Fast and Furious operation was exposed, the number of dead victims in drug cartel violence has been estimated as high as 160,000 deaths.

The ''Washington Post'' reported that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers had been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

====IRS scandal====
:{{Main article|IRS scandal}}

====Aid to Benghazi rebels====
A March 29, 2011 article in the ''[[Washington Post]]'' included these paragraphs:
{{Cquote|"It’s almost a certitude that at least part” of the Libyan opposition includes members of al-Qaeda, said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama. Riedel said that anti-Gaddafi elements in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi have had “very close associations with al-Qaeda” dating back years....I would hope that we now have a good sense of the opposition in Libya and can say that this is 2 percent, not 20 percent,” Riedel said. “If we don’t, then we are running the risk of helping to bring to power a regime that could be very dangerous.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-opposition-includes-a-small-number-of-al-qaeda-fighters-us-officials-say/2011/03/29/AFRlXWyB_story.html Libyan opposition includes a small number of al-Qaeda fighters, U.S. officials say], Washington Post</ref>}}
[[File:Mass beheading of Christians in Libya.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Gadaffi was an ally of the US against the jihadis until Obama armed the jihadis to overthrow Gadaffi. One of their first acts was the mass beheading of Christians.]]
This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss Washington in Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels], The New York Times</ref> It is now known sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels], The New York Times</ref> at the urging of Hillary Clinton<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=3&hp& Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton], The New York Times</ref> and over the objections of his National Security Council, Obama signed a Presidential Finding authorizing support for the rebel jihadis.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330 Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels], [[Reuters]]</ref>

By October 2011, [[Libyan rebel fighting group]]s with support from [[NATO]] overtook the capital and toppled the government. Gaddafi was captured and brutally and sadistically murdered.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPzeLLL9V-c Leading from behind - a critique of Obama foreign policy]</ref> The jihadis were immediately recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the new legitimate government. Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council, announced [[Sharia]] will be the source for all legislation and all laws conflicting with Sharia are null and void.<ref name="Sharia">[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse] - [[Daily Telegraph]]</ref> Abdel Rahim al-Kib, the country's interim prime minister, echoed Jalil's words days later.<ref>[http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207953.html New Libyan PM backs Islamic sharia law]</ref> The al Qaeda flag was flown above the Benghazi courthouse, and reports surfaced that the Libyan jihadis had imposed Sharia law in some parts of the country even earlier.<ref name="Sharia" /> By February 17, 2013, four foreign nationals were arrested for distributing Christian literature, a charge that could carry the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/17/libya-arrests-suspected-foreign-missionaries Libya arrests foreign 'missionaries' Four foreign nationals accused of distributing Christian literature] a charge that could carry the death penalty, Chris Stephen [[The Guardian]], Sunday 17 February 2013.</ref>

In 2014, the Obama Administration gave a $200,000 grant to a Sudanese group with ties to [[Al Qaeda]].<ref>Pappas, Alex (July 27, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/27/obama-administration-approved-200g-grant-to-group-with-al-qaeda-ties.html Obama administration approved $200G grant to group with Al Qaeda ties]. 'Fox News''. Retrieved July 27, 2018.</ref><ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (July 28, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/29656-obama-administration-funded-al-qaida-front Obama Administration Funded al-Qaida Front]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 28, 2018.</ref>

====Benghazi massacre====
[[File:Benghazi attack.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Amb. Stevens was specifically in Benghazi to oversee and facilitate transfer of captured weapons from the Gadaffi regime to groups in Syria which ultimately became the [[Islamic State]]. Few people had knowledge of this program beyond Stevens, Clinton, and Obama. Once the mission was completed, Stevens was expendable.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/REAL-Benghazi-Story-White-Hillary/dp/1531817130</ref>]]
:{{main|Benghazi Attack}}
With several U.S. embassies besieged on the anniversary of the [[September 11 attacks]], White House Press Secretary [[Jay Carney]] declared there was no reason to believe the attack on the sovereign territory of the United States consulate in Benghazi, less than two months before the [[2012 Presidential election]] which killed Americans, was a terrorist attack.
{{Cquote|The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive.}}
This became the official White House line. Between laughs with [[Jon Stewart]] on [[Comedy Central]], Obama said the death of Americans was "not optimal".<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/18/Obama-Benghazi-murders-not-optimal Interview with Jon Stewart of the ''Daily Show''], Breitbart.com</ref> When pressed by reporters, who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Press Secretary Carney argued “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”

Leading suspected jihadis in the murders and terrorist attack were the local Benghazi branch of Ansar al-Shariah, known to have ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121023114113/http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/10/19/when-an-obama-adviser-called-benghazi-an-al-qaeda-hotbed/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway When an Obama adviser called Benghazi an al-Qaeda hotbed]</ref> A commander of the terrorist group boasted jovially about the attack over drinks with reporters for the ''New York Times'' in Benghazi.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world Election-Year Stakes Overshadow Nuances of Libya Investigation], The New York Times</ref><ref>[https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/frappe-libya-attack/ Frappe-Sipping Libyan Militant Laughs at U.S. Manhunt for Benghazi Killers], [[Wired (magazine)]]</ref>

====Funding the Islamic State====
Two more Americans were killed, along with 35 others, after being taken hostage by rebel jihadists in Mali shortly after the Libyan upheaval.<ref>[http://world.time.com/2013/01/21/algeria-37-foreigner-hostages-killed-in-attack/ Algeria: 37 Foreigner Hostages Killed in Attack], Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2013. ''[[Time Magazine]]''.</ref>

Hillary Clinton testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the wake of the Benghazi murders under her stewardship, that weapons and fighters equipped by the Obama administration made their way to [[Mali]] and [[Algeria]]:
{{cquote|There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya. There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-militants-used-weapons-libya-algeria-attack-154222664.html Clinton says militants used weapons from Libya in Algeria attack] [[Reuters]], Jan 23, 2013.</ref>}}

====1MDB scandal====
After the 2012 election, Obama's chief fundraiser continued raising money for Democratic candidates. [[Frank White, Jr.]] and [[Pras Michel]] formed a joint venture with [[1Malaysian Development Berhad]] (1MDB), wholly owned by the Malaysian government. The venture supposedly was to invest in green technology and solar panels, but corrupt officials of 1MDB were more interested in buying influence with the [[Obama administration]] and the [[Democratic party]],<ref>[https://www.wsj.com/articles/suspect-malaysian-fund-tied-to-lobbying-of-white-house-1476403764 Malaysian Fund 1MDB Linked to White House Visit], By Bradley Hope and Colleen McCain Nelson, ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Oct. 13, 2016.</ref> and White and Pras likewise were not interested in providing a renewable source of electricity or solving the problems of [[poverty]] for Malaysia's 30 million people.

Malaysians have a median household income of $4500, so the theft of $4.5 Billion by [[globalism|globalists]] pushing green technology and Democrats looking for foreign money to finance their campaigns cause they can't sell their ideas at home, had a devastating impact on the Malaysian people, economy, and political culture.

White and Pras got two anonymous investors to lend a half of a Trillion dollars for a little over a two-year period. They formed a joint partnership agreement with 1MDB to build a green technology solar plant. White and Pras owned 49%, 1MDB controlled 51%. White was supposed to have provided financial advice. His advice turned out to be for 1MBD to buy out his 49% for $69 million six months after the agreement was signed, without White's entities investing any of the half Trillion he borrowed.<ref>"The crucial evidence from the records available (illustrated above) shows that the Private Equity fund Yurus, set up by White, registered the entire US$69 million it received from 1MDB as additional profit, implying it had not invested any of its original US$505 million fund in the venture." [https://medium.com/@sarawakreport/1mdb-sleaze-casts-shadow-over-us-democrats-on-eve-of-obama-visit-investigation-1MDB Sleaze Casts Shadow Over US Democrats On Eve Of Obama Visit], ''Sarawak Report'', 15 November 2015.</ref> Portions of the $69 million were then donated to Democrat Senate, Congressional, and Gubernatorial candidates. The $69 million Democrats stole from the people of Malaysia during the Obama presidency is only a fraction of the corrupt deals 1MDB did all over the planet. Much of the $4.5 Billion embezzled was laundered through U.S. banks, and has become the largest investigation ever under the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Act.<ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-delivers-remarks-press-conference-announcing-significant</ref>

====Spygate====
[[File:170509-andrew-mccabe-ac-1043p c043e7050b32e4ad26bd45b92eb651eb.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg|right|275px|thumb|McCabe (left) with co-conspirator Attn. Gen. [[Loretta Lynch]] (right). McCabe took $700,000 from a Clinton campaign operative to fix the email investigation and save Hillary's nomination. Lynch colluded with Bill Clinton at the Phoenix tarmac meeting to whitewash Hillary's email investigation and meddle in 2016 election.]]
:{{See also|Obamagate timeline|FBI scandal|FISA abuse|Crossfire Hurricane|Biden-Ukraine scandal}}
In the Obama-era political surveillance programs, the lines between the CIA and FBI were blurred. They wworked together through contractors.<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/25/president-obamas-2016-political-surveillance-coverup-had-two-parallel-tracks/</ref> The Obama administration had been conducting illegal surveillance on American citizens since 2012, shortly after the IRS scandal was exposed. On March 9, 2016, the [[NSA]] FISA compliance officer discovered the illegal collusion between the FBI and CIA to spy on American citizens. Between March and July 2016, the CIA used foreign intelligence allies in [[Italy]], the [[U.K.]] and [[Australia]] to create an illusion of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. This operation was based on earlier more innocuous contacts from various countries, weaponized and redeployed in what everyone calls “spygate”. This track successfully culminated with the start of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane.<ref>[https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/03/08/doj-political-surveillance-from-the-irs-in-2011-to-the-fisa-court-in-2016/ DOJ Political Surveillance – From the IRS in 2011 to the FISA Court in 2016], Posted on March 8, 2020 by sundance. theconservativetreehouse.com </ref>

On July 31, 2016 FBI deputy head of the [[counterintelligence]] division [[Peter Strzok]] began an investigation into [[Donald Trump]]. Two days later Strzok had this exchange with [[Lisa Page]], an attorney in FBI deputy director [[Andy McCabe]]'s office: {{Quotebox|'''Lisa Page – He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?! Strzok - No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.'''
}}
On September 2, 2016, Lisa Page wrote about preparing talking points for Dir. [[Jimmy Comey]] because “[[POTUS|potus]] [Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”<ref>https://theblacksphere.net/2018/02/fbi-text-message-potus-wants-know-everything/</ref> The text raised questions about the extent of Obama's personal involvement in on ongoing the FBI investigation.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-texts-obama-wants-know-everything-we-re-doing-n845531</ref>

[[Susan Rice]] sent an email to herself about a secret [[Oval Office]] meeting where the ''[[Clinton-Steele dossier]]'' was discussed;<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html</ref><ref>https://apnews.com/152579d488a740b2a8d39fbe2f34506d</ref><ref>https://apnews.com/a82309544e9e465fa2ad4f83e5a48540</ref> (the email was written and sent to herself 15 minutes after Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20):<ref>https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-uncover-unusual-email-sent-susan-rice-herself-president-trump-s</ref> {{Quotebox|"On January 5, following a briefing by [[IC]] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, [[President Obama]] had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director [[Jim Comey]] and Deputy Attorney General [[Sally Yates]] in the Oval Office. [[Vice President Biden]] and I were also present. President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book". The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book. From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. [Redacted section] The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would."<ref>https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-08%20CEG%20LG%20to%20Rice%20(Russia%20Investigation%20Email).pdf</ref>}}[[File:112 2016 b4-napo-comey-hoove8201 c0-389-1420-1216 s885x516 (1).jpg|right|300px|thumb|[[Jimmy the Weasel]] beside [[J. Edgar Hoover]]. Under Obama the FBI returned to the use of sexual innuendo and domestic spying on political opponents.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/19/comey-trump-cnn-news-hook/</ref>]]At the conclusion of the briefing, Obama asked Sally Yates and James Comey to remain. Together with Susan Rice, is where the “by the book” CYA comment comes into play. The 90-day surveillance period under the FISA warrant had just a bit over two weeks left to run — it was set to expire just as Trump was to take office. (Reporting suggests that there may also have been a [[FISA]] warrant on [[Paul Manafort]] around this time.) The Obama administration was confronting a deadline if the FISA warrant was to be renewed while Obama was still in power. The officials in the meeting needed to figure out how the investigation could continue despite the fact that its central focus, Trump, was about to be sworn in as president. Rice's “by the book” bunkum is transparent: Obama officials claimed to adhere to a book that forbade consultations between political leaders and investigators. But here they were consulting. So Rice tried to cover their tracks in her email: She revises history such that the consultation morphs into a mere friendly reminder that Obama wanted everything done by the book.<ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/susan-rice-email-president-obama-russia-investigation/</ref>

The [[Russia collusion hoax]] was predicated on the unverified premise that [[Wikileaks]] was a front for [[KGB]] activity. Nonetheless, Obama commuted the sentence of [[Chelsea Manning]] who passed [[national security]] secrets to WikiLeaks two days before Obama left office.

On March 4, 2017, after becoming President, Trump tweeted:
<blockquote>How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!<ref>https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump</ref></blockquote>
and
<blockquote>Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!</blockquote>

Members of the mainstream media called this wiretapping claim an "astonishing and reckless accusation".<ref name=wiretap>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-experiment-may-come-to-an-early-tipping-point/2017/03/05/87d38b3a-0055-11e7-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.edb071c61986|title=The Trump Experiment may come to an early tipping point|first=EJ|last=Dionne Jr.|work=Washington Post|date=March 5, 2017|accessdate=March 5, 2017}}</ref> It was later all found to be true and accurate. Nixon resigned over attempting to spy on the opposition party at the [[Watergate]] hotel; Obama got away with it on scale no one could ever imagine.

====Final Mueller report====
According to ''[[USA Today]]'', "[[Obama]] blew it big time" in regards to Russian efforts to meddle in the [[2016 presidential election]]. Mueller's final report flatly states that [[Russia]] began interfering in American democracy in 2014.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/18/mueller-report-collusion-trump-russian-election-interference-democrats-takeaways-column/3505946002/</ref> Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into an attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The [[Obama administration]] knew this and did nothing. [[National Security Advisor]] [[Susan Rice]] told her staff to "stand down" and "knock it off" against the Russians.<ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/stand-obama-team-blew-response-russian-meddling-100024634.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw</ref><ref>https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/why-the-hell-are-we-standing-down/</ref> Obama was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted [[Vladimir Putin]] in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama's estimation, upset that negotiation.<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html?no-st=1555716010</ref>

According to DCWhispers {{quotebox|Obama had his hands all over this attempted [[coup]] of a duly elected [[President of the United States]]. The reasons for that are likely many, but perhaps a foundational reason is this—Barack Obama has never considered himself to be one required to follow U.S. law. He has always been inclined to see himself as a person of the world, not of a single nation and a single nation’s laws. Some have argued he is openly defiant of said laws, thinking them a byproduct of a deeply flawed America of which he has little if any loyalty toward. Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda is the antithesis of Obama’s “America Bad” world view and he could not abide seeing his legacy of relegating the United States to secondary world status overtaken by an outsider who was not beholden to the rules of the elite political class in D.C.

And so, Mr. Obama once again weaponized the federal government in an attempt to destroy a political opponent. The fact this was a shocking violation of the law meant little because all of America’s laws mean so little to the now former president.<ref>http://dcwhispers.com/report-dirty-dealings-of-dirt-devils-who-concocted-trump-russia-probe/#SHCy4bth9xbL6Ifx.99</ref>}}

===Pardons and commutations===
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, President Obama issued 1,928 grants of clemency, with 1,716 being commutations, more than any other U.S. president.<ref>Bedard, Paul (September 5, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-broke-the-record-for-commuting-jail-sentences-1716/article/2633400 Obama broke the record for commuting jail sentences, 1,716]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 6, 2017.</ref> Obama pardoned [[Chelsea Manning]] who allegedly [[collude]]d with [[Julian Assange]] of [[Wikileaks]], who allegedly colluded with Russia to interfere in the [[2016 presidential election]]. Manning was pardoned four days before Obama left office as the Russia collusion investigation was getting under way.

===Controversies===
:''Main article: [[Barack Obama Controversies]]''
Several major controversies have dogged Obama throughout his political career and have received major media coverage and prominence.

'''Obamaisms'''

Obama's bizarre gaffes, or [[Obamaisms]], were frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Some examples are: spelling respect as R-S-P-E-C-T when he was attempting to sing that line from [[Aretha Franklin]]'s famous song, spelling Ohio as O-I-H-O, and saying that we built the Intercontinental Railroad instead of the Transcontinental Railroad, saying "How's it going, Sunshine" when he was in the city of Sunrise, Florida.<ref>Kurtzman, Daniel (March 6, 2014 or aft.) [https://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm "Obamaisms: Dumb quotes and gaffes by Barack Obama"]. About.com website/About entertainment/Political humor/Funny political jokes/Political gaffes.</ref> Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where, referring to infrastructure improvements, he said "[[You didn't build that]]." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, Justin (June 1, 2012). [https://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe "Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe"]. The Hill website/Policy/International.</ref> Gaffes are inevitable for people with a high profile, but several of Obama's were very revealing ("you didn't build that"), and they show how the [[mainstream media]] tends to emphasize the gaffes of conservatives as opposed to liberals.

'''Famous quotes'''
*"I continue to believe that [[Donald Trump]] will not be president." (stated when asked by a reporter a month prior to Election Day)<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4iZSW_76TE Democrats and Media Agreed: There Was No Way Donald Trump Could Be Elected], Video</ref>

===Election meddling===
By custom, President Obama stayed neutral during the primaries, even though his close friend and Vice President [[Creepy Uncle Joe]] [[Biden]] was seriously considering a Presidential campaign.

Once Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, Obama campaigned for her and also attended fundraisers. Obama publicly criticized the Republican candidate, [[Donald Trump]] who had previously spent years claiming that Obama was not born in the United States.

===Last days and transition===
:{{See also|Trump transition|FISA abuse}}
In a stunning repudiation of Obama's policies, Republican businessman [[Donald Trump]] was elected over Democrat [[Hillary Clinton]] – Obama considered it a personal insult.<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (May 3, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/03/obama-considered-trumps-election-personal-insult/ Report: Obama Considered Trump’s Election a Personal Insult]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 3, 2019.</ref><ref>Kafozoff, Kristian (May 3, 2019). [https://www.theepochtimes.com/obama-considered-trumps-2016-win-as-personal-insult-new-updates-from-book_2905270.html Obama Considered Trump’s 2016 Win As ‘Personal Insult’: New Updates From Book]. ''The Epoch Times''. Retrieved May 3, 2019.</ref> In a frantic attempt to leave some sort of legacy, Obama issued a very large amount of far-Left executive orders and regulations which revealed his true political views if any doubt remained.<ref name="ActionsSpree">Lucas, Fred (December 26, 2016). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/26/spree-obama-actions-revives-gop-concerns-over-midnight-regs-agenda.html?refresh=true Spree of Obama actions revives GOP concerns over ‘midnight’ regs, agenda]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref> These orders included blocking large areas of the [[Arctic Ocean|Arctic]] and [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]] oceans from oil and gas drilling, effectively barring the U.S. from real [[Energy Independence|energy independence]]; breaking the record of pardons and commutations in a single day for criminals (many of them were sentenced for drug-related crimes), showing his soft stance on crime and drugs; ending the defunct NSEERS program to register male immigrants from North Korea and [[Islam]]ic countries (the necessary, beneficial, and useful program was suspended by the Obama Administration in 2011<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/22/obama-ditches-registry-focused-on-immigrant-men-from-muslim-countries.html Obama ditches registry focused on immigrant men from Muslim countries]. ''Fox News''. December 22, 2016. Retrieved March 9, 2017.</ref>); attempting to transfer even more terrorists out of [[Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp|Guantanamo Bay]]; allowing an anti-[[Israel]] resolution pass in the [[United Nations]]; enacting a record amount of unnecessary, useless, and job-killing regulations; and even more.<ref name="ActionsSpree"/> Obama added 120,000 illegal immigrants to the DACA program in the last three months of his presidency.<ref>Binder, John (May 16, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/16/obama-stamped-120k-dreamers-trump-takeover/ Obama Stamped 120K DREAMers Before Trump Takeover]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> Obama made these actions knowing that Trump, who had almost completely opposite political views on these issues, was going to enter the [[White House]] in such short a time.

Although all of Obama's actions were worrisome, his actions in regards to Israel were particularly noteworthy. He broke over 35 years of American policy by abstaining from a UN vote and allowing a blatantly anti-Israel resolution to pass, showing his true stance concerning Israel.<ref name="StrikeAgain">[https://worldisraelnews.com/israel-fears-obama-will-strike/ Israel fears Obama will strike again]. ''World Israel News''. December 26, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref><ref name="FedUpDrastic">Berkowitz, Adam Eliyahu (December 26, 2016). [https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/80855/fed-up-with-obamas-trickery-netanyahu-takes-drastic-actions/#VbVlRMtkx4zLRc3f.97 Fed Up With United States Trickery, Netanyahu Takes Drastic Actions]. ''Breaking Israel News''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref> Soon before leaving office, Obama bypassed Congress and gave the [[State of Palestine]] $221 million.<ref name="221MLastHours"/>

Obama continued to believe that he could have successfully "won" a third term as president had he been able to run.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/26/obama-could-have-won-third-term.html?refresh=true Obama: I could have won third term]. ''Fox News''. December 26, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref> Regardless of the factuality of that claim, Democrats lost 1,042 seats—including U.S. House, Senate, state governorship, and state legislative seats—during his eight years in office.<ref name="1,000Seats">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.html Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama]. ''Fox News''. December 27, 2016. Retrieved December 27, 2016.</ref> Obama also believed that "the Democratic Party has stayed pretty grounded in fact and reality" despite its negative policies that suggest otherwise.<ref>Lawler, David (December 26, 2016). [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/barack-obama-says-democrats-will-not-disintegrate-like-labour/ Barack Obama says Democrats will not 'disintegrate' like Labour under Jeremy Corbyn]. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref>

Obama made Trump's transition much harder and rockier than it could have been by his leftist executive orders, decisions, and comments during the transition period.<ref>Swoyer, Alex (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/28/donald-trump-responds-to-president-obamas-many-inflammatory-statements/ Donald Trump Responds to President Obama’s ‘Many Inflammatory’ Statements]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref><ref>Scott, Eugine (December 28, 2016). [https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/politics/trump-obama-statements-not-smooth-transition/ Trump: 'NOT' a smooth transition after Obama 'roadblocks']. ''CNN''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

Obama received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service from [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Ash Carter]], an Obama appointee in the same administration.<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (January 4, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/04/president-obama-awards-himself-distinguished-public-service-medal/ President Obama Awards Himself Distinguished Public Service Medal]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 7, 2017.</ref> Although the award was created in 1947, the only other presidents to have received the medal (all during their tenure) are [[Bill Clinton]], a left-wing Democrat, and [[George W. Bush]], who holds [[RINO]] positions on certain issues.

In an interview, Obama claimed that "we are probably the first administration in modern history that hasn't had a major scandal in the White House,"<ref>[https://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/13/president-obama-60-minutes-no-white-house-scandals-during-my-administration Obama: I'm the 1st Modern President Without a Major Scandal]. ''Fox News Insider''. January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 16 2017.</ref> and Obama's Chief of Staff [[Denis McDonough]] claimed likewise,<ref>Shelbourne, Mallory (January 15, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/314396-obama-chief-of-staff-most-proud-we-are-scandal-free Chief of staff: Obama administration 'historically free of scandal']. ''The Hill''. Retrieved January 16, 2017.</ref> despite the strong and massive evidence to the contrary.<ref>Dickens, Geoffrey (January 16, 2017). [https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2017/01/16/ The Seven Most Undercovered Obama Scandals]. ''[[NewsBusters]]''. Retrieved January 16, 2017.</ref><ref>Hemingway, Mark (January 9, 2017). [https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-obama-era-had-scandals-aplenty/article/2006197 The Obama Era Had Scandals Aplenty]. ''[[Weekly Standard]]''. Retrieved January 16, 2017.</ref>

====Massive increase in regulations in 2016====
In addition to his other actions in 2016, Obama massively increased the number of federal regulations during his last days in office.<ref>Harper, Jennifer (May 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/30/inside-the-beltway-obamas-unprecedented-surge-of-r/ Inside the Beltway: Obama’s unprecedented ‘surge’ of regulations]. '' The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 30, 2017.</ref><ref>Lawler, Joseph (May 31, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-rules-surged-in-obamas-last-year-to-3853-most-pages-in-federal-register-ever/article/2624503 New rules surged in Obama's last year to 3,853, most pages in Federal Register ever]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved May 31, 2017.</ref> More regulations were finalized in every year since 2005, and they cost the economy $2 trillion.<ref>Sherfinski, David (May 31, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/31/obamas-regulations-in-2016-to-drain-economy-by-2-t/ Obama’s regulations in 2016 to drain economy by $2 trillion]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 31, 2017.</ref>

==Post-presidency==
:{{See also|2020 Democrats' attacks on Barack Hussein Obama}}
Obama made an ungraceful departure from office claiming on October 18, 2016, Donald Trump's complaints of lies spread about Trump were corrosive to American democracy and an invented conspiracy theory.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/obama-trumps-rigged-election-claim-whining-before-the-games-even-over/</ref> Less than two months later after Trump had won, Obama claimed he himself had been derelict in his duty and had fallen asleep at the switch allowing Russian hackers to steal the election for Donald Trump.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/russia-hack-election-trump-obama.html</ref>

Despite Obama's opposition to Trump's plan to build a wall along the U.S.–[[Mexico]] border in order to secure it, it was reported in early 2017 that he was building a wall around his new mansion, obviously to keep unwanted people out.<ref>[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-building-a-wall-around-his-new-dc-house/article/2611130 Obama building a wall around his new DC house]. ''Washington Examiner''. January 6, 2017. Retrieved January 7, 2017.</ref>

Obama acquired a lavish celebrity lifestyle after ending his presidency.<ref>Varney, James (June 17, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/17/obama-endorsement-coveted-ex-president-writes-own-/ Hobnobbing Obama raking in the cash post-presidency -- while still dabbling in politics]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 19, 2019.</ref> He spent much of his time vacationing in exclusive and elite locations around the world.<ref>Bennett, Kate (March 17, 2017). [https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/where-in-the-world-is-barack-obama/ Barack Obama is probably lying on a beach in a deserted paradise right now]. ''CNN''. Retrieved March 18, 2017.</ref> He spent much time with left-wing celebrities, such as spending [[Good Friday]] 2017 on a $300 million yacht with celebrities such as [[Bruce Springsteen]], [[Tom Hanks]], and [[Oprah Winfrey]],<ref>Hudson, Jerome (April 17, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/04/17/barack-michelle-obama-join-oprah-springsteen-hanks-on-david-geffens-yacht/ Good Friday: Obamas Join Winfrey, Springsteen, Hanks on David Geffen’s Yacht]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 27, 2017.</ref> and in Italy in 2019 with [[George Clooney]].<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (June 25, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/06/25/jet-setting-obamas-seen-hobnobbing-with-the-clooneys-on-ritzy-lake-como/ Jet Setting Obamas Seen Hobnobbing with the Clooneys on Ritzy Lake Como]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 25, 2019.</ref> In addition, Obama accepted a $400,000 speech backed by Wall Street,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/27/obama-spokesman-defends-reported-400000-wall-street-backed-speech.html Obama spokesman defends reported $400,000 Wall Street-backed speech]. ''Fox News''. April 27, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2017.</ref> something that stunned even many liberals.<ref>Wallace, Christopher (April 27, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/27/obamas-400g-wall-street-speech-leaves-liberal-base-stunned.html Obama's $400G Wall Street speech leaves liberal base stunned]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 27, 2017.</ref> Despite the criticism over the speech, Obama gave another $400,000 speech shortly afterward.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/28/obama-reportedly-pulls-in-another-400g-for-speech.html Obama reportedly pulls in another $400G for speech]. ''Fox News''. April 28, 2017. Retrieved April 28, 2017.</ref> [[Bernie Sanders]] described Obama's speaking fees as "unfortunate."<ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/28/unfortunate-bernie-sanders-criticizes-obama-for-accepting-400k-for-wall-street-speech/ ‘Unfortunate’: Bernie Sanders criticizes Obama for accepting $400K for Wall Street speech], [[The Blaze]]</ref> In May 2017, Obama traveled to Italy to give a speech on [[global warming|climate change]], but used pollution-heavy transportation to get to his destination.<ref>Zanotti, Emily (May 21, 2017). [https://heatst.com/politics/obama-speaks-on-global-warming-then-spews-co2-with-private-jet-13-car-motorcade/ Obama Speaks on Global Warming, Then Spews CO2 With Private Jet, 13-Car Motorcade]. ''Heat Street''. Retrieved May 22, 2017.</ref> On June 6, 2017, Obama gave a $400,000 speech to the Chamber of Commerce in [[Montreal]] in which one of the topics he spoke about was "warning against income inequality and the concentration of wealth."<ref>Starr, Penny (June 7, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/obama-warns-income-inequality-delivering-7700-minute-speech/ Obama Warns Against Income Inequality While Delivering $7,700-a-Minute Speech]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref> After leaving office, Obama bought a house in D.C. for $8.1 million.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/obamas-purchase-d-c-house-for-8-1-million-new-report-says.html Obamas purchase D.C. house for $8.1 million, new report says]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref><ref>Bennett, Kate (June 2, 2017). [https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/obama-house-kalorama/index.html Obamas purchase their DC rental house for millions]. ''CNN''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref> In August and September 2017, Obama made a combined $1.2 million from three Wall Street speeches.<ref>Shelbourne, Mallory (September 18, 2017). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/351138-obama-making-big-money-speeches-to-wall-street-firms-report Obama making big-money speeches to Wall Street firms: report]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref><ref>Yilek, Caitlin (September 18, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-making-400000-speeches-to-wall-street-firms-report/article/2634736 Obama making $400,000 speeches to Wall Street firms: Report]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref><ref>Kight, Stef W. (September 18, 2017). [https://www.axios.com/trump-wants-a-july-4th-military-parade-2486828811.html Obama to make $1.2 million from 3 Wall Street speeches]. ''Axios''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/19/obama-cashes-in-on-wall-street-appearances-report-says.html Obama cashes in on Wall Street appearances, report says]. ''Fox News''. September 19, 2017. Retrieved September 19, 2017.</ref> In late 2019, the Obama family bought a mansion in Martha's Vineyard for $11.75 million.<ref>Multiple references:
*Calicchio, Dom (December 5, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamas-pay-11-75m-for-marthas-vineyard-home-report Obamas pay $11.75M for Martha’s Vineyard home on nearly 30 acres: report]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
*Kurtz, Judy (December 6, 2019). [https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/473343-obamas-buy-home-in-marthas-vineyard Obamas buy home on Martha's Vineyard]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
*Bleau, Hannah (December 6, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/06/obamas-officially-purchase-11-75-million-waterfront-mansion-in-marthas-vineyard/ Obamas Officially Purchase $11.75 Million Waterfront Mansion in Martha’s Vineyard]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 6, 2019.</ref>

Several of Obama's failures as U.S. president were revealed shortly after he left office, as it was found that [[Syria]] continued to possess chemical weapons after Obama stated they were gone, that the Obama Administration misrepresented the release of some Iranian prisoners, and that the Obama Administration had unmasked [[Trump Transition]] officials (See: [[Barack Obama Controversies]] and [[Obamagate timeline]]).<ref>Shepherd, Todd (April 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-first-100-days-as-ex-president/article/2621662 Obama's first 100 days as ex-president]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved May 1, 2017.</ref>

After leaving office, Obama started his own foundation, the Obama Foundation, and set to work on building his presidential center and library.<ref>Berger, Judson (May 3, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/clinton-obama-return-to-public-eye-with-new-ventures.html Clinton, Obama return to public eye with new ventures]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref> Obama's 2018 budget request, which was over $1.1 million, made him the most expensive U.S. president in the country's history.<ref>Multiple references:
*Rodriguez, Katherine (September 2, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/02/obama-is-the-most-expensive-ex-president-for-american-taxpayers/ Obama Is the Most Expensive Ex-President for American Taxpayers]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.
*Dinan, Stephen (August 31, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/31/obama-will-top-bush-most-costly-ex-president/ Obama will top Bush as most costly ex-president]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.
*Caralle, Katelyn (September 1, 2017). [https://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-most-costly-former-president-2018/ Obama Poised to Be Most Costly Former President in 2018]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.
*Bohon, Dave (September 2, 2016). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26826-obama-most-expensive-ex-president-ever Obama Most Expensive Ex-President Ever]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.</ref> It was reported in June 2018 that construction work related to his presidential library would cost Illinois taxpayers nearly $200 million.<ref>Shaw, Adam (June 16, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/16/work-related-to-obama-presidential-center-to-cost-illinois-taxpayers-nearly-200-million.html Work related to Obama Presidential Center to cost Illinois taxpayers nearly $200 million]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 16, 2018.</ref><ref>Rodriguez, Katherine (June 16, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/16/report-obama-presidential-center-cost-taxpayers-200-million/ Report: Obama Presidential Center to Cost Taxpayers Nearly $200 Million]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 16, 2018.</ref> Despite promising not to cut down any trees in Jackson Park, where the library was planned to be built, the Obama Center and Chicago Park District began removing trees anyway for work related to the library construction.<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (August 11, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/11/obama-center-breaks-promise-remove-trees-jackson-park/ Obama Center Breaks Pledge Not to Remove Trees in Jackson Park]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 11, 2018.</ref>

It was reported in May 2017 that the Justice Department under Obama likely discriminated against veterans – in violation of federal law requiring the government to give preference to veterans in job hiring – by attempting to influence them to withdraw their applications.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (May 17, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/17/obama-doj-refused-hire-veterans-jobs-investigation/ Obama’s Justice Department refused to hire military veterans for jobs]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 19, 2017.</ref>

Obama did not give any mention of [[Independence Day]] on his Facebook or Twitter on that day in 2017 while he was visiting [[Seoul]].<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (July 5, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/05/july-4th-no-mention-independence-day-barack-obamas-twitter-facebook/ On July 4th: No Mention of Independence Day on Barack Obama’s Twitter or Facebook]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 5, 2017.</ref>

Obama denied the existence [[Barack Obama Controversies|of any scandals]] "that embarrassed us" during his presidency.<ref>Spiering, Charlie (February 27, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/27/obama-didnt-scandal-embarrassed-us-presidency/ Barack Obama: ‘We Didn’t Have a Scandal that Embarrassed Us’ in My Presidency]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved February 27, 2018.</ref> In May 2018, he repeated his claim that the Administration "didn't have scandals" and was less corrupt than other modern administrations.<ref>Manchester, Julia (May 24, 2018). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/389188-obama-jokingly-brags-i-didnt-have-scandals-during-my-presidency Obama jokingly brags: 'I didn't have scandals' during my presidency]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved May 24, 2018.</ref> He repeated these false claims in March 2019.<ref>Chaitin, Daniel (March 6, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-brags-in-canada-my-team-never-experienced-scandal-made-mistakes-of-integrity Obama brags in Canada: My team never experienced scandal, made 'mistakes of integrity']. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved March 6, 2019.</ref> In July 2018, he gave a speech in [[South Africa]] calling for [[basic income]], saying he wanted to pay more taxes, and advocating for other left-wing ideas such as criticizing income inequality despite admitting he was very wealthy.<ref>Multiple references:
*Newman, Alex (July 24, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/29624-in-south-africa-obama-outlines-globalist-agenda-for-humanity In South Africa, Obama Outlines Globalist Agenda for Humanity]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 25, 2018.
*Singman, Brooke (July 17, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/obama-slams-populist-right-wing-billionaires-touts-liberal-push-for-universal-income.html Obama slams populist 'right-wing billionaires,' touts liberal push for 'universal income']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Caplan, Joshua (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/17/barack-obama-preaches-wealth-redistribution-in-south-africa/ Barack Obama Lectures World on Racial, Wealth Inequality in South Africa]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Boyer, Dave (July 17, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/17/obama-surprised-his-wealth-wants-pay-more-taxes/ Obama says he's 'surprised' by his wealth, wants to pay more taxes]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Hoft, Jim (July 18, 2018). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/obama-ridicules-the-rich-theres-only-so-big-a-house-you-can-have-obamas-just-bought-8-1-million-house/ Obama Ridicules the Rich: “There’s Only So Big a House You Can Have” …After Obamas Just Bought $8.1 Million House]. ''Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved July 18, 2018.
See also:
*Pollak, Joel B. (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/17/barack-obama-government-individual-south-africa/ Barack Obama in South Africa: ‘Government Exists to Serve the Individual, and Not the Other Way Around’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Lee, Tony (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/17/obama-concedes-new-international-elite-out-of-touch-for-exploiting-lower-cost-immigrant-labor/ Obama Concedes ‘New International Elite’ Out of Touch for Exploiting ‘Lower-Cost Immigrant Labor’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.</ref> He also advanced his [[War on Sovereignty|anti-nation-state agenda]] in the speech,<ref>Munro, Neil (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/economics/2018/07/17/obama-abolish-the-nation-state/ Obama: Abolish the Nation-State!] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.</ref> and he praised the country's racist strongman leaders.<ref>Newman, Alex (July 25, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/29634-amid-racist-land-grabs-obama-praises-south-african-strongman Amid Racist Land Grabs, Obama Praises South African Strongman]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 25, 2018. See also:
*Newman, Alex (July 29, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/29658-obama-slams-trump-while-deifying-communist-terror-leader Obama Slams Trump While Deifying Communist Terror Leader]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 30, 2018.</ref> On September 7, 2018, Obama made a speech in which he harshly criticized President Trump, breaking his promise not to publicly make such statements.<ref>Multiple references:
*Spiering, Charlie (September 7, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/07/bitter-barack-obama-breaks-months-of-silence-to-trash-donald-trump/ Bitter Barack Obama Breaks Months of Silence to Trash Donald Trump]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
*Schallhorn, Kaitlyn; Shaw, Adam (September 7, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/07/obama-returns-to-campaign-trail-with-fiery-speech-trump-counters-fell-asleep.html Obama returns to campaign trail with fiery speech; Trump counters, 'I fell asleep']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
*Duke, Selwyn (September 8, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/30014-obama-s-back-slamming-trump-and-projecting-his-own-sins-onto-gop Obama’s Back, Slamming Trump and Projecting His Own Sins onto GOP]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 9, 2018.</ref> He also tried to take credit for the strong economic growth under President Trump.<ref>Byas, Steve (September 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/30062-obama-brazenly-tried-to-take-credit-for-better-economy-under-trump Obama Brazenly Tried to Take Credit for Better Economy Under Trump]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 15, 2018.</ref> Obama made speeches criticizing [[nationalism]] and promoting [[globalism]].<ref>Caplan, Joshua (September 28, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/28/barack-obama-lectures-europeans-about-nationalism-in-denmark/ Barack Obama Lectures Europeans About Nationalism — in Denmark]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 28, 2018.</ref> On November 2, 2018, Obama called on Florida voters to vote Democrat because it would help [[Cuba]].<ref>Spiering, Charlie (November 3, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/03/cuba-first-barack-obama-says-florida-democrats-help-make-cuba-great-again/ Cuba First: Barack Obama Says Florida Democrats Will Help Make Cuba Great Again]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 3, 2018.</ref> In a speech in Berlin in April 2019, Obama referred to himself 392 times, a personal record and more than doubling his previous record.<ref>Gage, John (April 8, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barack-obama-refers-to-himself-a-record-breaking-392-times-in-berlin-speech Barack Obama refers to himself a record-breaking 392 times in Berlin speech]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 8, 2019.</ref>

Many of the candidates that Obama campaigned for in the [[2018 midterm election]]s lost.<ref>Lowe, Tiana (November 7, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-loses-again https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-loses-again]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved November 7, 2018.</ref>

While the state of [[Iowa]] once played a key role in Obama's election, by 2019, Democrat candidates almost never mentioned his name in the state.<ref>Simonson, Joseph (April 9, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barack-who-iowa-propelled-obama-to-the-white-house-now-no-one-speaks-his-name Barack who? Iowa propelled Obama to the White House — now, no one speaks his name]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 9, 2019.</ref> By 2019, Obama became disliked even by left-wing Democrats.<ref>Miller, S.A.; McLaughlin, Seth (August 3, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/1/obama-presidential-legacy-attacked-joe-biden-2020-/ Why Democrats are tossing Obama under the bus]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 3, 2019.</ref>

==Legacy==
In September 2016, a [[Parasite|parasitic]] worm, the [[Baracktrema obamai]], was named after Obama.<ref>Kaplan, Sarah (September 9, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/09/09/scientists-like-barack-obama-so-much-that-they-named-a-parasite-after-him/ Scientists like Barack Obama so much that they named a parasite after him]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved September 9, 2016.</ref> As of December 2016, at least 15 schools in the United States have been named after Obama. [[Illinois]], a very liberal state, enacted a law making August 4 "Barack Obama Day," and it almost made the day a paid holiday for its state workers despite its dire financial situation caused by leftist policies.<ref>Multiple references:
*Huston, Warner Todd (August 7, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/07/illinois-makes-obama-birthday-state-holiday/ Deep Blue Illinois Makes Obama’s Birthday a State Holiday]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 8, 2017.
*Carter, Brandon (August 6, 2017). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/345523-illinois-makes-barack-obama-day-a-state-holiday Illinois makes 'Barack Obama Day' a state holiday]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
*Siciliano, John (August 6, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/barack-obama-day-is-official-holiday-in-illinois/article/2630769 'Barack Obama Day' is official holiday in Illinois]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
*[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/07/illinois-governor-signs-law-to-honor-barack-obamas-birthday.html Illinois governor signs law to honor Barack Obama's birthday]. ''Fox News'' (from the ''Associated Press''). Retrieved August 7, 2017.
See also:
*Gearty, Robert (August 4, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/04/illinois-celebrates-first-official-barack-obama-day.html Illinois celebrates first official 'Barack Obama Day']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 4, 2018.
*Rodriguez, Katherine (August 4, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/04/illinois-residents-celebrate-first-annual-barack-obama-day/ Illinois Residents Celebrate First Annual ‘Barack Obama Day’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved AUgust 5, 2018.</ref>

Conservatives strongly criticized Obama for his far-left and negative policies and the negative impact of those policies.<ref>Scaliger, Charles (February 23, 2017). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/25433-barack-obama-s-legacy Barack Obama's Legacy]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Adelmann, Bob (January 20, 2017). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/25183-is-obama-worst-u-s-president Is Obama Worst U.S. President?] ''The New American''. Retrieved June 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Vargas, Mark (September 16, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-legacy-of-barack-obama-and-its-not-a-good-one The legacy of Barack Obama (and it's not a good one)]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 16, 2018.</ref> [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote, "Obama's legacy is to double the national debt & dramatically reduce US influence in the world."<ref>https://twitter.com/dineshdsouza/status/760447860638789632</ref> During Obama's 8 years in office, Democrats lost over 1,000 seats in the federal and state governments.<ref name="1,000Seats"/> Obama abused his power by using [[surveillance]] tools granted under the [[Patriot Act]], intended to fight terrorism and [[Al Qaeda]], against domestic political opponents and the [[Republican party]]. Obama may best be remembered for his use of coercion, [[police state]] tactics and [[authoritarian]] tendencies.

Upon assuming office, President [[Donald Trump]] wiped out much of Obama's last-minute regulatory actions through [[Congressional Review]].<ref>Korte, Gregory (March 27, 2017). [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/27/trump-signs-four-bills-roll-back-obama-era-regulations/99690456/ Trump signs four bills to roll back Obama-era regulations]. ''USA Today''. Retrieved March 28, 2017.</ref><ref>Pollak, Joel B. (April 15, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/15/trump-congressional-review-act-legislative-milestone/ Trump’s Use of the Congressional Review Act Is a Legislative Milestone]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 15, 2017.</ref> Trump also adopted a stronger foreign policy.<ref>Llorente, Elizabeth (April 14, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/14/ex-obama-officials-say-hesitation-to-use-force-in-syria-elsewhere-emboldened-adversaries.html Ex-Obama officials say hesitation to use force in Syria, elsewhere, emboldened adversaries]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 14, 2017.</ref><ref>Collinson, Stephen (April 14, 2017). [https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/politics/donald-trump-military-afghanistan/index.html Trump carves out tough commander-in-chief posture]. ''CNN''. Retrieved April 14, 2017.</ref>

Many commentators have noticed similarities between Mr. Obama and Breaking Bad's [[Walter White]], including ''The New York Times'',<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/fashion/barack-obama-bryan-cranston-table-for-three.html?mcubz=0</ref> Politico,<ref>https://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2013/12/obama-is-hooked-on-breaking-bad-180326</ref> and USA Today.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/12/30/obama-television-shows-breaking-bad-house-of-cards-homeland/4247651/</ref>

Former Obama [[HUD Secretary]] [[Julian Castro]] and Joe Biden sparred over who was the heir to the Obama legacy in the Democratic pre-primary [[2020 presidential election]] debates. Obama withheld his support from his former vice president, [[Biden's age]] presumably being the main factor. Castro argued, "I'm fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama, and you're not."<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/13/julian-castro-attacks-joe-biden-health-care-im-fulfilling-legacy-barack-obama-youre-not/</ref>

In an article entitled, ''If God doesn’t do something soon, he’s going to owe Sodom & Gomorrah an apology'', Tom Tillison wrote, "Oppose 9-year-old drag queens in post-Obama America and the [[liberal media]] is sure to tag you with a “[[homophobe]]” label."<ref>https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/10/27/drag-kids-debuts-if-god-doesnt-do-something-soon-hes-going-to-owe-sodom-gomorrah-an-apology-844721</ref>

==Further reading==
*Margolis, Matt; Noonan, Mark (2018). [https://www.amazon.com/Worst-President-History-Legacy-Barack/dp/1682618137/ ''The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama'']. New York: Bombardier Books. ISBN 978-1682618134.

==See also==
*[[Obamagate timeline 2009-2015]]
*[[Obamagate timeline|Obamagate timeline 2016 election year]]
*[[Russiagate timeline 2017]]
*[[Russiagate timeline|Russiagate timeline 2018]]
*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Ukrainian crisis]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Essay:The Obama Manifesto]]
*[[Obama syndrome]]
*[[Barack Obama's past dog meat eating and 2012 election campaign]]
*[[Barack Obama's "Last chance at dinner" fundraising letter]]
*[[Barack Obama is the antichrist speculation]]
*[[Essay: Does Barack Hussein Obama care if America defaults on credit?]]
*[[Essay:The lie that we are safer under Obama]]
*[[Essay: Foes Want Obama to Fail, A Republican Perspective]]
*[[Essay:Impeach Obama]]
*[[Benghazigate timeline]]
*[[Obama's second term agenda]]
*[[ObamaRail]]
*[[Obama sequester]]
*[[Obama (disambiguation)]]
*[[Essay: President's speech after the defeat of two tyrants]]
* [[Unconstitutional]] [[Executive amnesty]] via Obama [[Executive Order]]s
* [[Universal health care]] for [[Illegal immigration|illegal aliens]] via [[ObamaCare]]
*[[FusionGPS]]
*[[Deep state coup]]
*[[Crossfire Hurricane]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Profile] on the ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress''
*[http://barackobamadoubletalk.com/ Barack Obama Doubletalk]
*[https://archive.is/73G5z Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States, Chicago, IL | August 26, 2008]
*[https://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/03/national-journal-obama-facing-crisis-over-incompetence/ National Journal: Obama facing crisis over incompetence]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO8qZP_iU9I Obama - The Anti-Israel President]
{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{2012 presidential candidates}}
{{Globalism}}
{{Deep State}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Nobel Laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Progressivism]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Chicago]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Globalists]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Hillary Clinton email scandal]]
[[Category:Blame America Crowd]]
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]][[Category:Soros Puppets]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]
[[Category:Terrorism]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2020-05-14T17:52:32Z

Timber2: Personal opinion. This is an encyclopaedia.

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]; may have had a prior marriage.<ref>Corsi, Jerome R. (July 19, 2012). [https://www.wnd.com/2012/07/was-barack-obama-married-in-college/ "Was Barack Obama married in college?"]. WorldNetDaily website. See [[WND]]</ref>
|religion= Islam(secretly)
|offices={{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Donald Trump]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=Illinois Senate, 13th district
|terms=January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004
|preceded=[[Alice Palmer]]
|succeeded=Kwame Raoul
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' claim to have been born in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] on August 4, 1961 has been disputed by some. He was the 44th President of the [[United States]]. Elected as America's first "post-racial" president according to some, Obama exacerbated racial tensions and left a dismal legacy of a divided<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (July 22, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/22/pollak-barack-obama-wrote-playbook-on-political-division/ Pollak: Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 22, 2019.</ref> America along [[Marxist]] class, racial, and "[[gender confusion|gender normative]]" lines, according to others.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/obama-race-relations-poll/</ref> In his final year in office, Barack Obama illegally meddled in the [[2016 Presidential election]] and attempted to blame the [[Russian]]s for it.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/02/10/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-believe-obama-improperly-surveilled-trump-campaign/</ref> In early January 2017, Obama empowered holdovers in his administration to stage a [[coup]] against the [[Trump transition]] team and the incoming [[Trump administration]].<ref>*https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/08/soft-coup-on-trump-hiding-in-plain-sight/ *[http://archive.is/9KxFz How Obama Ran the Trump Coup], By Robert A. Taft, Feb 17, 2020.</ref>

Obama insisted on failed policies, such as [[ObamaCare]], and yet had an arrogant dismissal of his critics.<ref>
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/7/assessing-the-obama-legacy-he-has-failed/ Assessing the Obama legacy], Washington Times, December 7, 2016
*[https://www.nationalreview.com/article/442299/barack-obama-progressive-arrogance-leads-backlash Its Arrogance and Condescension Finally Catches Up with the Left], ''National Review'', 2016
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/17/president-obamas-biggest-mistake-in-office-thinking-you-can-separate-politics-from-policy/?utm_term=.802d414c3589 President Obama admits his biggest mistake: Arrogance], ''Washington Post'', 2015</ref> A hard veil of censorship fell during his administration.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162</ref> Much of Obama's personal life was shrouded in mystery<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sca-BjFJb_Q</ref> as the media promoted his agenda of uprooting cultural norms. Critics of Obamacare or [[gay marriage]] typically were smeared as racist. The US Intelligence Community was used to spy on, harass, and intimidate independent journalists and political opponents.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120925054433/http://wikileaks.org:80/gifiles/docs/1210665_obama-leak-investigations-internal-use-only-pls-do-not.html</ref> His presidency was marred by anemic economic growth, rising federal debt, his poor foreign policies and multiple political scandals.<ref>
*[https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html Barack Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth], Real Clear Markets, February of 2016
*[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-9000000000000 Debt Under Obama Up $9,000,000,000,000], CNS News, October 2016
*[https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/18/barack-obama-was-a-foreign-policy-failure/ Barack Obama Was a Foreign-Policy Failure], ForeignPolicy.com
*[https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/08/20/obamas-legacy-of-failure-in-the-middle-east/ Obama’s Legacy of Failure in the Middle East], ''Foreign Policy Journal'', 2016
*[https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/ 18 Major Scandals in Obama’s ‘Scandal-Free’ Presidency], Breitbart, January of 2017
*[http://akdart.com/obama101.html Lists of Obama scandals], Andrew K. Dart, http://akdart.com updated January 2019.</ref> Obama separated families at the border and locked children in cages.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border</ref> Pursuing a foreign policy that undermined American interests, he developed close relations with foreign dictators and shunned democratic movements.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (July 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/07/12/pollak-everything-joe-biden-said-about-donald-trumps-foreign-policy-actually-describes-barack-obamas/ Pollak: Everything Joe Biden Said About Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Actually Describes Barack Obama’s]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 12, 2019.</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi/status/1038127594682675200 Heshmat Alavi]. ''Twitter''. September 7, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2019.</ref> He failed to see the backlash against his "transformational" [[Cultural Marxist]] programs and said in February 2016, "I continue to believe that Mr. [[Donald Trump|Trump]] will not be president."<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/obama-i-continue-believe-trump-will-not-be-president-n519751 Obama: ‘I Continue to Believe Trump Will Not Be President’], NBC, 2016</ref> Obama is arguably the worst president in U.S. history.<ref>Bedard, Paul (September 7, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/list-200-reasons-why-obama-is-worst-president-in-history List: 200 reasons why Obama is ‘worst president in history’]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 7, 2018.</ref>

Obama was educated at [[Harvard Law School]]. In a paper he wrote as a student, he dismissed the American dream as "unfounded optimism" while noting that [[Donald Trump]] is the true idol of the American working class.<ref>Obama wrote: “[Americans have] a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.” ([http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/everything-wrong-with-obama-in-two-sentences-with-a-twist.php Everything Wrong with Obama in Two Sentences-with a Twist]").</ref>

[[Barack Obama and abortion|Obama is pro-abortion]]. In fact, he was the most pro-abortion president to date.<ref>[https://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/obama-most-pro-abortion-president-ever "Obama: The most pro-abortion president ever"] (July 12, 2011). The Susan B. Anthony List website/The Suzy B Blog.</ref> Obama dedicated himself to promoting abortion—rather than reduce them as he promised. Just to name a few of the administrative actions by which he has done this would include expanding abortions through [[Obamacare]], appointing many pro-abortion judges and officials, moving to strip medical professionals of rights of conscience, and forcing taxpayers to support the pro-abortion movement around the globe.

Obama partnered with [[al Qaeda]] and [[Islamic State]] elements in [[Syria]] for a [[regime change]] war against [[Bashar al Assad]].<ref>https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19583-moderate-rebels-armed-by-obama-join-al-qaeda-isis</ref> Assad was a voice for pluralism and inclusion, protecting Christians, Jews, Yazidis and minorities against Obama-backed [[Islamofascist]]s.<ref>https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011912135213927196.html</ref>

Despite framing himself as an advocate for the poor, speaking about income inequality and [[socialism]], Obama is a [[limousine liberal]] as his life after his presidency attests.

==Biography==
'''Early controversies'''
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
Obama claims to have been born in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] on August 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]]—who had married just six months prior.<ref name=msnbc>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ "Obama becomes rising star among Democrats: Transcript of 'The Candidates: Barack Obama'"] (February 20, 2008). MSNBC. Retrieved from NBC News website/MSNBC TV documentaries. See [[MSNBC]].</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. [[Obama]] was reportedly given a social security number whose first three digits were assigned at that time to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all [[Social Security]] numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland. [https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html "The SSN numbering scheme"] (March 2001 or bef.) Social Security: Official Social Security website/History/Social Security Numbers.</ref> Obama traveled to Pakistan, India, and Indonesia in 1981, however, he never obtained a U.S. passport until 2004 after he was elected to the United States Senate. During the 2008 presidential primaries, a firm headed by [[John Brennan]] hacked into the [[U.S. State Department]]'s visa files and accessed Obama's passport files using whichever Social Security numbers Obama was using at the time.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html</ref> An FBI informant and whistleblower who worked for Brennan, and was the key witness, was found murdered by a gunshot wound two weeks later.<ref>https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/</ref> Obama later appointed Brennan to a key White House position and as [[CIA]] director in his second term. Brennan was referred for [[criminal]] investigation in 2019 in Obama's [[Spygate]] scandal.

Claims that Obama was born in [[Kenya]] have been traced to sources hired by Obama. In 1991, Obama's literary agent, Acton & Dystel, published a promotional booklet stating that Obama was born in Kenya.<ref>Multiple references:
*Pollak, Joel B. (May 17, 2012). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii "The vetting—exclusive—Obama's literary agent in 1991 booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'"]. Breitbart website/Big government. See [[Breitbart.com]].
*Newby, John (May 17, 2012). [http://www.examiner.com/article/publisher-s-1991-booklet-says-barack-obama-was-born-kenya "Publisher's 1991 booklet says Barack Obama 'was born in Kenya'"]. Examiner.com website/News/Politics/Republican.</ref> The claim that Obama was born in Kenya remained on the agent's website until 2007.<ref>Shapiro, Ben (May 17, 2012). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007 "Obama's lit agency used 'born in Kenya' bio until 2007"]. Breitbart website/Big government. See [[Breitbart.com]].</ref> Internet archives confirm this information.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html "Client list"]. Dystel and Goderic Literary Management website. Retrieved from April 3, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.</ref> In addition to the information from literary agents, Michelle Obama stated in a speech that Kenya is Obama's "homeland".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzJz2A2N1c "Michelle Obama: Kenya is Barack Obama's homeland!"] (Michelle Obama speaking at the 2008 LGBT Democratic Convention delegate luncheon hosted by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign: "The world as it should be", August 26, 2008) (April 7, 2010). YouTube video, 0:30, posted by Rubystars0000. See [[Human Rights Campaign]].</ref> At a speech in Kenya shortly after his presidency ended, Obama publicly stated that, "Now, three years ago, I visited Kenya as the first sitting American President to come from Kenya."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L36sGc4Id2I Obama's speech at the launch of Sauti Kuu Foundation in Kogelo] at YouTube (Obama's admission starts at 5:48 of the video)</ref>

Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 when his mother discovered Barack Obama Sr. was already married to a woman living in Kenya.<ref>Birrell, Ian (August 12, 2011). [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2024819/Barack-Obamas-father-Bigamist-drunk-wife-beater.html "Barack Obama's father: Bigamist, drunk and wife-beater, [review of] ''The Other Barack'' by Sally H. Jacobs (Pubic Affairs £20)"]. MailOnline/U.K./Books [U.K.] This is one of the first misleading statements about Barack Obama when he was introduced to America as Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Advance publicity billed him as the "son of Kenyan economist" when, in fact, Obama Sr. was forced out of the graduate program at Harvard because of his bigamy. He returned to Kenya. Obama at the age 9 once briefly met his father who served in the corrupt Kenyan socialist regime's Department of [[Economic Planning]]. Obama Sr. killed himself in a drunken car accident.</ref> When Obama was 2 years old his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. At age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|publisher=The Daily Beast website|date=May 3, 2011|title="Dreams of his mother": Review of ''A Singular Woman'' by Janny Scott|author=Stacy Schiff}} See [[The Daily Beast]].</ref> His mother then abandoned him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) <ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts. See CNN</ref> so she could return to Indonesia after her divorce. Obama's grandfather arranged for his friend, the noted Communist writer [[Frank Marshall Davis]], to serve as a mentor and role model for an impressionable African-American youth.

Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (March 2008). [https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 "Raising Obama"]. ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to [[Columbia University]], he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending [[Harvard Law School]] (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

Obama attended [[Jeremiah Wright|Reverend Jeremiah Wright]]'s Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a [[community organizer]] (''See [[Barack Obama#1984-1988.2C Community Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic school while he was in kindergarten, and later a public school which taught religion. The school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians are Muslim). In ''[[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|Dreams from My Father]]'', Obama writes, "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to my mother that I had made faces during [[Koran]]ic studies."<ref>Obama, Barack (1995). ''Dreams from My Father'' (New York: Times Books), p. 14. Quoted at [http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dreams_From_My_Father_Principles_+_Values.htm "Dreams from my father: On principles & values"]. OnTheIssues website. See [[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|''Dreams from my Father'']]</ref> ''Insight'' magazine first reported [[Hillary Clinton]]'s organization had "questions about Obama’s Muslim background: ''Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a [[Madrassa]] as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?"''<ref>Schlussel, Debbie (January 19, 2007). [http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2899/hillary-clinton-agrees-with-schlussel-obama-suspicious-deceptive-on-muslim-background/ "Hillary Clinton agrees with Schlussel: Obama suspicious, deceptive on Muslim background"]. Debbie Schlussel website. See [[Debbie Schlussel]].</ref>

In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu where he began substance abuse and illegal drugs.<ref>Johnson, Luke (May 25, 2012). [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/obama-pot-smoking-details_n_1545904.html "Obama pot-smoking details revealed in David Maraniss book"]. The Huffington Post website. See [[Huffington Post]].</ref> He was accepted through a scholarship for disadvantaged minorities while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At this elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students. Obama failed to make the starting lineup of the school's state champion basketball team his senior year. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles,<ref name=msnbc /> and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (July 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "In Illinois, Obama proved pragmatic and shrewd"]. ''The New York Times'' website. See ''[[New York Times]]''.</ref> During this time he published an anti-military tirade embracing Soviet General Secretary [[Leonid Brezhnev]]'s <ref>Obama supported [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] General Secretary Brezhnev's foreign policy over both Presidents [[Jimmy Carter]] and Ronald Reagan's decision to deploy the MX Missile in Europe.
* See Pond, Elizabeth (November 24, 1981). [https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1124/112439.html "Brezhnev offers Schmidt moratorium on nuclear missiles"]. ''Christian Science Monitor''. See also ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]''.
* See also Obama, Barack (March 10, 1983). [https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article/original.pdf "Breaking the war mentality"]. Columbia [University] ''Sundial''. Retrieved from archive at ''The New York Times'' website. See also ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> proposal for a nuclear freeze in the campus newspaper and allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, Janny. (October 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "Obama's account of New York years often differs from what others say"]. ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> From 1983 to 1988, Obama took time off from his education to work as a financial analyst and later a community organizer in Chicago. In the winter of 1988, Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the ''[[Harvard]] Law Review''. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a "marathon voting session" in which he finally won on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue his political career in Chicago.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ "Obama becomes rising star among Democrats: Transcript of 'The Candidates: Barack Obama'"] (February 20, 2008). MSNBC. Retrieved from NBC News website/MSNBC TV documentaries. See MSNBC.
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts. See [[CNN]]</ref>

When Obama was attending Harvard Law School, he dreamed of him or his children becoming like [[Donald Trump]].<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/obama-once-dreamed-being-trump-manuscript-shows.html Obama once dreamed of being Trump, manuscript shows]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref>

'''Personal life'''
According to ''Rising Star'' by David J. Garrow, in 1986 Obama tried hard to convince Sheila Miyoshii Jager, someone of Dutch and Japanese ancestry, to marry him.<ref name="MarryBefore"/> She refused his request to marry him due to her age. By 1987, Obama had his sights on becoming U.S. President.<ref name="MarryBefore">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/book-barack-obama-asked-woman-to-marry-him-before-meeting-michelle.html Book: Barack Obama asked woman to marry him before meeting Michelle]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref>

[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, Barack Obama's domestic partner.]]
Barack Obama met his mate known then as Michelle Robinson, while he was an intern and Michelle was on staff at Sidley Austin LLP, a very large corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> Despite company policy prohibiting relations between staff and interns, the two became involved. The two continued a long-distance relationship while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1992,<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/obama-anniversary-20-years-married_n_1935840.html "Obama anniversary: Barack & Michelle celebrate 20 years of marriage (photos)"] (October 3, 2012). Huffington Post website. Huffington Post says it was October 3, 1992. See [[Huffington Post]].</ref> were joined in a domestic union officiated by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church,<ref>http://hillbuzz.org/time-to-tell-everyone-you-know-about-jeremiah-wrights-down-low-club-barackobama-presobama-26407</ref> a church which has supported gay marriage since the 1970s.<ref name=revealed /> Michelle has not practiced law since 1994 when she failed to renew her law license, allegedly to start a family. Malia, the couple's oldest daughter, was born in 1999, and Natasha (often called Sasha) in 2001.<ref name=msnbc />

===Early employment===
'''1983–1984: financial analyst and writer'''

In 1983 Obama [[collude]]d with [[Russia]] to further Russian [[foreign policy]] interests against the United States in an essay entitled ''Breaking The War Mentality'' published in Columbia University's weekly magazine, ''The Sun Dial.''<ref>https://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/obama-article-sun-dial-columbia-breaking-war-mentality.pdf</ref>

In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to help pay off some of his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies in understanding overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere.<ref>Multiple references:
*Scott, Janny (October 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "Obama's account of New York years often differs from what others say"]. ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.
*Henig, Jess (June 21, 2008). [https://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ "Obama polishes his resume"]. FactCheck.org website.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20091003011550/http://www.analyzethis.net/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/ "Barack Obama embellishes his resume"] (July 9, 2005). Analyze This website. Retrieved from October 3, 2009 archive at Internet Archive.</ref>

====1984–1988: community organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs />

From 1985–88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago <ref>The Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC)</ref> funded with a $25,000 grant by [[Bill Ayers]]' Woods Fund. ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car<ref>Multiple references:
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts. See [[CNN]].
*Scott, Janny (September 9, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all "In 2000, a streetwise veteran schooled a bold young Obama]." ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> however stories vary wildly. Jerry Kellman, who hired him, says it was "$10,000 a year and a $2,000 car allowance". Obama himself gave different numbers; his memoir says $10,000 (as well as the car), in his Wesleyan speech he gave it as "$12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car", and when he announced his candidacy for president, it was "a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year".

Ryan Lizza at ''[[The New Republic]]'' reported that "Jean Rudd of the Woods Fund...had provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama". Ari Berman reported in ''[[The Nation]]'' that the "[Woods Fund] gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama". CBS Channel 2 in Chicago ran a story with a document showing that Obama's proposed salary in 1987 was $25,000, a number that the Obama campaign confirmed while insisting at the same time his original salary was $13,000.<ref>Beckwith (April 23, 2008 or bef.). [http://theobamafile.com/obamaworks.htm "Community organizing"]. The Obama File website/Politics.</ref> Many of the organizers that Obama worked with in Chicago were experienced in the methods of [[Saul Alinsky]], and taught Obama many of the methods found in his book ''[[Rules for Radicals]]''.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/03/14/how%20saul%20alinsky%20taught%20barack%20obama%20everything%20he%20knows%20about%20civic%20upheaval/ How Saul Alinsky Taught Barack Obama Everything He Knows About Civic Upheaval]</ref>

During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''[[CNN]]'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. Obama abandoned the fight against asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project to pursue personal interests and a career by enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
[[File:Bookbio.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The Birther movement was started by Obama himself.]]
'''1988–1996: law practice'''
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP,<ref>Multiple references:
*Lattman, Peter (May 11, 2007). [https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ "When Barack met Michelle"]. Wall Street Journal website/Business/Law Blog/Lawyers and Law Firms. See ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Transcript of "Barack Obama Revealed"]. CNN website/Transcripts.</ref> whose partners included [[Newton Minow]], thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at the Sidley Austin firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future domestic partner.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law including suing Citibank to force them into making [[Subprime loan|subprime mortgage]]s to minority borrowers.<ref>Schweizer, Peter (October 5, 2009). [https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html "A poisonous cocktail: Expanding the Community Reinvestment Act"]. ''Forbes'' website. See [[Forbes]]. In ''Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank'', lead attorney Obama alleged that although his clients had been denied mortgages "because of delinquent credit obligations and adverse credit," they were really victims of institutional racism. The suit was brought about by the Community Reinvestment Act, so called affirmative action mortgage lending. The plaintiffs won $60,000, and the court awarded Sidley Austin $950,000 for the work of Obama and two other attorneys.</ref> After graduating from Harvard he was hired by Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref>Lattman, Peter (May 11, 2007). [https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ "When Barack met Michelle"]. Wall Street Journal website/Business/Law Blog/Lawyers and Law Firms. See ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.</ref> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer [[Tony Rezko]].<ref name=revealed />

'''1991–1992: Project Vote'''
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!,<ref name=revealed /> and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with defeating popular incumbent Democrat Senator Alan Dixon in the primary and electing [[Carol Moseley-Braun]] as a reprisal for Dixon's support for Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref name=PurdumandScott>Multiple references:
*Purdum, Todd (March 2008). [https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 "Raising Obama"]. ''Vanity Fair''.
*Scott, Janny (July 30, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all "In Illinois, Obama proved pragmatic and shrewd"]. ''The New York Times'' website. See ''[[New York Times]]''.</ref>

'''1991-1995: Author'''

In 1995 Obama published ''[[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|Dreams From My Father]]'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc /> It was in a 1992 book Obama claimed to have been born in Kenya.

====1995: Nation of Islam====
[[File:Barack-Hussein-Obama-mit-Louis-Farrakhan-528x524.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Barack Obama with the notorious [[anti-Semite]], [[Louis Farrakhan]]. Farrakhan calls [[Jews]] "pigs and dogs." The [[Anti-Defamation League]] identifies Farrakhan as the nation's “leading anti-Semite."<ref>[https://www.adl.org/resources/profiles/the-nation-of-islam The Nation of Islam], Anti-Defamation League.</ref>]]
According to the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', prior to the information being scrubbed from its website in mid-April 2008 during the Democratic Presidential Primaries, Obama was one of three prominent organizers of black supremacist group the [[Nation of Islam]]'s [[Million Man March]] on Washington, D.C.<ref>Hoft, Jim (April 2, 2008). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/04/wright-obama-helped-organize-march-with-louis-farrakhan/ "Wright & Obama helped organize march with Louis Farrakhan"]. Gateway Pundit website. See [[Gateway Pundit]]</ref>

'''1992–2004: lecturer at University of Chicago'''
Obama taught part-time at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. Though Obama erroneously describes himself as a "constitutional law professor",<ref>Whiteman, Timothy (April 5, 2013). [http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-complains-of-being-constrained-by-a-system-founding-father-put-place "Obama complains of being 'constrained by a system' Founding Fathers put in place"]. Examiner.com/News/Politics/Republican.</ref> he was actually only a senior lecturer and the class he taught the most times was called "Current Issues in Racism and the Law".<ref>Holt, Mytheos (September 20, 2012). [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/20/obamas-favorite-course-to-teach-at-the-university-of-chicago-revealed/ "Obama’s favorite course to teach at the University of Chicago revealed"]. The Blaze/Stories/Media. See [[The Blaze]].</ref> He was a Lecturer from 1992–96, teaching 3 courses per year<cite>, and a senior lecturer from 1996-2004. After Obama was criticized for lying about his job title, the University of Chicago released a statement stating that senior lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time, tenured track position several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>[https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media "Media inquiries: Statement regarding Barack Obama"] (March 2008 or bef.). University of Chicago Law School website. See [[University of Chicago]]</ref>

===Awards===
Obama shares the distinction with [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Josef Stalin]] as twice being named ''[[Time magazine]]'' person of the year.

'''2009 Nobel Peace Prize'''

On October 9, 2009, Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (October 10, 2009). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html "President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize"]. ''Washington Post'' website. See [[Washington Post]].</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>[https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html "The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press release"] (October 9, 2009). Nobel Prize website [Oslo, Norway]/Nobel Prizes/Peace/Laureates/2009. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>CNN (October 9, 2009). [https://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html?eref=ib_us "Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action'"]. CNN website/World/Europe.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize—men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Multiple references:
*Chazan, Guy and MacDonald, Alistair (October 11, 2009) [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html "Nobel Committee's decision courts controversy"]. ''The Wall Street Journal'' website/World.
*Associated Press (October 9, 2009). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ "Obama's Peace Prize draws criticism, even from some liberals"]. Fox News website/Politics. See [[Associated Press]].</ref>

==1996–2003: Illinois State Senate==
'''1996 election'''
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like-minded individuals gathered for a fundraising event in the early career of Barack Obama hosted by [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]] [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Besides Obama, those in attendance were Ayers wife [[Bernardine Dohrn]],<ref>Geyer, Georgie Anne and Beech, Keyes (October 1970). "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals [five part series]". ''Chicago Daily News''/''Chicago Sun-Times''. Excerpted in
[https://vault.fbi.gov/Weather%20Underground%20(Weathermen) ''Foreign Influence: Weather Underground Organization (WUO)''] (August 20, 1976), pp. 113-115. FBI. Retrieved from "Weather Underground (Weathermen)" webpage PDF rendering, part 3 of 6, pp. 5-7 at FBI website/FBI Records: The Vault. Located by The Real Barack Obama blog. See ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]''.</ref> and Carl Davidson, veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] just prior to the 1968 Democrat National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>Klein, Aaron (August 13, 2009). [https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 "Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder"]. WorldNetDaily website. "[[Van Jones]]...served on board of..." "activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director"'. See [[WorldNetDaily]].</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill Ayers#Prairie Fire Organizing Committee and Maoist thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]]'', the title taken from [[Quotations from Chairman Mao|''The Sayings of Mao Zedong'']].<ref>[https://archive.org/details/QuotationsFromChairmanMaoTse-tung/ ''Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung''] (1966), 2nd ed. Retrieved from Internet Archive.</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Klehr, Harvey (1988). ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (New Brunswick: Transaction Books), p. 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''[[Dreams From My Father (autobiography)|Dreams From My Father]]''<ref>Cashill, Jack (March 28, 2011). [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html "Ayers affirms he wrote ''Dreams from my Father''"]. American Thinker website/Blog. See [[American Thinker]].</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, John (October 21, 2009). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html "From Mao to Obama"]. ''Wall Street Journal'' website.</ref>

===A Charter of Negative Liberties===
In a 2001 interview on WBEZ FM Chicago Public Radio, Senator Obama said some critically disparaging things about the [[United States Constitution]]. He said:

<blockquote>If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. 
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.<ref>[https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution Barack Obama's Poor Understanding of the Constitution]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv]</ref><ref>[https://www.wnd.com/2008/10/79225/ Obama rips U.S. Constitution]</ref></blockquote>

'''Backstabbing fellow Democrats'''

Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent [[Alice Palmer]], who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David and Long, Ray (April 4, 2007). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-04-04/news/0704030881_1_petitions-voter-rights-candidates "Barack Obama: Showing his bare knuckles"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by ''The New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both CNN<ref name=revealed /> and MSNBC.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
—Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (April 3, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130123154440/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story "Obama knows his way around a ballot"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. Retrieved from January 23, 2013 archive at Internet Archive.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757).<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (February 28, 2008). [https://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ "Barack Obama and me"]. ''Houston Press'' website.</ref> Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (May 29, 2008). [https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/ "Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign"]. CNN website. Article text begins: "When the Democratic National Committee meets Saturday on the thorny issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations..."</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.

'''2000 election'''
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former [[Black Panther]] Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. Michelle Obama opposed taking on such an iconic figure dear to the community and threatened divorce.<ref>Bates, Daniel (May 16, 2012). [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145035/Michelle-Obama-prepared-divorce-papers-separate-Barack-leaving-suicidal.html "New book claims Michelle Obama prepared divorce papers to separate from Barack—leaving him so depressed friends feared he'd kill himself"]. ''Daily Mail'' website. See ''[[Daily Mail]]''.</ref> Establishment Democrats considered Obama "a white man in blackface".<ref>Gilmore, Jim (reporter, producer). (October 9, 2012). [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/transcript-29/ "Transcript of 'Barack Obama' in Kirk, Michael and Wiser, Mike (producers) '''Frontline'': The Choice 2012'"]. PBS website/WGBH/Frontline/film/The Choice 2012.</ref> Rush said of Obama, "He went to Harvard and became an educated fool," adding, "We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees."<ref>Ballasy, Nicholas (March 28, 2012). [https://dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/bobby-rush-in-2000-obamas-a-harvard-educated-fool-who-thinks-he-knows-all-about-the-civil-rights-protests/ "Bobby Rush in 2000: Obama a Harvard ‘educated fool’ who ‘thinks he knows all about’ the ‘civil rights protests’"]. Daily Caller website. See [[Daily Caller]].</ref> Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that
{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now....One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}
Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref>Scott, Janny (September 9, 2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all "In 2000, a streetwise veteran schooled a bold young Obama]." ''The New York Times''. See ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />

'''State Senate voting record'''

Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] – in fact, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama record may be gold mine for critics|publisher=CBS News website|last=Clark|first=Amy|date=January 17, 2007}} See [[CBS News]].</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|publisher=''The New York Times'' website|title=In Illinois, Obama proved pragmatic and shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|date=July 30, 2007|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}.</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. See Davidson, Carl (November 2, 2006). [https://web.archive.org/web/20100811115415/http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 "About CAWI"]. Chicagoans Against War and Injustice website. Retrieved from August 11, 2010 archive at Internet Archive.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[https://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson] (2010 or bef.) LinkedIn [Profile page/Experience/Webmaster]. Retrieved March 13, 2010 and February 13, 2016.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

'''2003 Emil Jones deal'''
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances Obama approached the newly crowned president of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, whom Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>Associated Press (March 31, 2008). [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-political-godfather-in-illinois/ "Obama's political 'godfather' in Illinois"]. CBS News website. See [[Associated Press]], CBS News.</ref> the conversation went as follows:
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’"<ref name=PurdumandScott/>}}
Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak />—as CNN's Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile,<ref name=godfather /> he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref>Multiple references:
*Malveaux, Suzanne (August 20, 2008). [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html "Transcript of 'Barack Obama Revealed'"]. CNN website/Transcripts.
*Spivak, Todd (March 25, 2004). [http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html "In the black"]. ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
—Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004–2008: U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama#U.S. Senate .282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''p
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]] Obama was a relatively undistinguished Senator.

'''2004 Primary election'''
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]],<ref>Spivak, Todd (March 25, 2004). [http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html "In the black"]. ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites "Obama routs Democratic foes"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (March 19, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20070826095930/http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp "The rise and fall of Blair Hull"]. The Claremont Institute website. Retrieved from August 26, 2007 archive at Internet Archive. See [[Claremont Institute]].</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterward criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (March 18, 2004). [https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems "See a rising star in Illinois Senate Candidate"]. ''USA Today'' website/News/Politics-Elections/Nation/Campaign 2004. See ''[[USA Today]]''.</ref>

'''2004 General election, Jack Ryan'''

Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular front-runner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>Associated Press (June 26, 2004). [https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm "Jack Ryan abandons Senate bid"]. ''USA Today'' website/News/Politics-Elections/State/Campaign 2004. See [[Associated Press]].</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (October 1, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20060924232703/http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html "Jack Ryan '81: The conservative idealist"]. ''Dartmouth Independent'' website. Retrieved from September 24, 2006 archive at Internet Archive.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>Obama, Barack (June 26, 2004). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html "Transcript: Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama [Keynote address at 2004 Democratic National Convention]"]. Transcribed by FDCH E-Media. ''Washington Post'' website. See ''[[Washington Post]]''.</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan and Despeignes, Peronet (July 28, 2004). [https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm "Rising star brings Democrats to their feet"]. ''USA Today'' website/News/Politics-Elections/Nation/President/Campaign 2004. See ''[[USA Today]]''.</ref>

'''2004 General election, Alan Keyes'''
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''
After a number of candidates including former [[Chicago Bears]] coach Mike Ditka declined to run,<ref>CNN (August 9, 2004). [https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/senate.illinois.keyes/ "Keyes challenges Obama for Illinois Senate seat"]. CNN website/Politics/America Votes 2004. See [[CNN]].</ref> the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations,<ref name=spivak /> with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>Multiple references:
*"[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes "The GOP's rent-a-senator"] (August 6, 2004). ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''.
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html "Mr. Keyes the carpetbagger"] (August 9, 2004). ''Washington Post'', p. A14. Retrieved from ''Washington Post'' website. See ''[[Washington Post]]''.
*Pearson, Rick (September 5, 2004). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party "Keyes, state GOP gearing up blame campaign"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website/News.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (August 18, 2004). [https://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html "How YOU can help Alan Keyes for Senate!"] Message from Keyes2004 Inc. to multiple internet mailing lists. Retrieved from archive of newsandviews internet mailing list at The Mail Archive website.</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004),<ref name=assails>Associated Press (August 9, 2004). [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ "Keyes assails Obama's abortion views"]. NBC News website/Politics.</ref> accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>United States Congress (October 21, 2003). [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s3/text/enr "S. 3 (108th): "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003"], sec. 2, subsec. 14, paras. G and O. Govtrack.us website/Congress/Bills/108th Congress/Senate bill 3/Text.</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Multiple references:
*Keyes, Alan (June 2008 or bef.) [http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 "Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show"]. Alan Keyes Archives website. Transcript of interview by Tavis Smiley. ''Tavis Smiley Show'' (New York City: National Public Radio, August 31, 2004). See [[NPR]].
*Keyes, Alan (June 2008 or bef.) [http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 "Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning"]. Alan Keyes Archives website. Transcript of interview with ''CBS This Morning'' show. ''CBS This Morning'' (Chicago: CBS 2, August 30, 2004).</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates "Debate or discussion?"] (October 13, 2004). ''Chicago Tribune'' website/News.</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Keyes, Alan (June 2008 or bef.). [http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 "Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)"]. Alan Keyes Archives website. Transcript of interview by Scott Thomas. ''Scott Thomas Show'' (Chicago: WYLL, AM 1160, September 7, 2004).</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref>Multiple references:
*Pearson, Rick (September 5, 2004). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party "Keyes, state GOP gearing up blame campaign"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website/News.
*Associated Press (September 2, 2004). [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/5897569/ns/politics/t/keyes-cheneys-gay-daughter-practicing-selfish-hedonism/#.VsR94_krKWg "Keyes: Cheney's gay daughter practicing selfish hedonism"]. NBC News website/Politics.
*Pallasch, Abdon M. (September 2, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20040903052923/http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-keyes02.html "Keyes' gay slam roils GOP"]. ''Chicago Sun-Times'' website/News/Elections. Retrieved from September 3, 2004 archive at Internet Archive. See ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]''. This article misquotes [[Liz Cheney]]; previous bulleted reference in this multiple reference gives full quote verified by CNN transcript.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html "America votes 2004: Election Results, U.S. Senate/Illinois"] (November 2, 2004). CNN Hungary website/Elections.</ref>

'''U.S. Senate voting record'''
Obama's incomplete term in the U.S. Senate was largely not noteworthy. In voting against raising the [[debt limit]] in 2006 Obama famously said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."<ref>Multiple references:
*''Washington Post'' FACT CHECKER, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/annotating-obamas-2006-speech-against-boosting-the-debt-limit/2013/01/14/aa8cf8c4-5e9b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html Annotating Obama’s 2006 speech against boosting the debt limit], Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, 01/15/2013.
*Kaplan, Rebecca (April 11, 2011). [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ "Obama once opposed debt ceiling hike"]. ''The Atlantic'' website/Politics.</ref> In 2008 as candidate for president Obama called George W. Bush's request to raise the debt limit "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q "Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic [July 3, 2008]"] (August 23, 2011). YouTube video, 0:38, posted by maywhitley31.</ref>

The ''National Journal'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title="''National Journal'': Obama most liberal senator in 2007"|author=Montopoli, Brian|date=January 31, 2008|publisher=CBS News website}}. See [[CBS News]].</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> and voted against the [[minimum wage]] bill<ref>Multiple references:
*Gill, Kathy (May 26, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20070905140628/http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm "HR 2206 - Emergency appropriations [110th Congress, House of Representives, signed into law May 25, 2007]"], About.com website/News & Issues/U. S. Politics: Current Events/Legislation. Retrieved from September 5, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.
*[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> he introduced because it included a provision to pay active duty U.S. troops. He voted for the $700 billion TARP program to bailout the big banks after receiving more than $120,000 in contributions from [[Fannie Mae]], a government-sponsored entity<ref>more than any other political candidate for office since 1989. [https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers], By Lindsay Renick Mayer, September 11, 2008. opensecrets.org</ref> taken into conservatorship for mismanaging its affairs and responsible for all the big banks' problems.

According to Opensecrets.org, of the 671,269 contributions to Obama during his time in the Senate, [[Goldman Sachs]], JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley were among the top 20 biggest money donors to his campaigns.<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008 Top 20 Contributors, 2007-2008]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/finance.php?can_id=9490 Barack Obama II's Campaign Finances]</ref> All four subsequently received approximately $70 billion in taxpayer assisted [[bailout]] money from the [[TARP]] program he voted for.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/14/business/14bailout.graphic2.html ''Beneficiary Banks'', ''The New York Times''. 2008-10-14.]</ref> UBS AG, a foreign bank and the 12th largest donor to Obama,<ref>[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Top 20 Contributors, 2007-2008]</ref> was fined $780 billion in February 2009 in a U.S. Federal Court on charges it helped thousands of Americans evade taxes.<ref>[https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20090219/FREE/902199983 ''UBS fined $780 million in tax evasion scandal,''] Investment News, February 19, 2009.</ref> After just four short years, Obama still ranks number one over all time of Big Pharma money recipients with slightly under $5 million, followed by Hillary Clinton with a little more than $3.5 million.<ref>https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&mem=Y</ref> Since entering the Senate, prescription opioid deaths in the U.S. rose from 12,000 per year to over 46,000 per year.<ref>https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html</ref>

==Presidential campaigns==
Contrary to popular myth at the end of the [[Cold War]], Communism did not die, it only went into remission. The rise of Barack Obama and passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) signaled a renewed attack on basic constitutional rights and a revival of a spectre haunting humanity.

===2008===
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Unlike Democrat contenders Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Obama's hands were not "stained" with the Iraqi war resolution; a number of Democrats wanted to punish candidates for acting [[bi-partisan]] and called for his candidacy. His only career accomplishment until then had been the delivery of a speech at the 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]].

Through heavy use of [[early voting]] by the Democrat political machine, Obama was elected president in 2008 in the midst of a severe economic meltdown and a foreign policy crisis. Obama outspent [[John McCain]] by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008,<ref>[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008 "Candidate comparison: Top contributors 2008 cycle"] (betw. September–November 2013). OpenSecrets.org website.</ref> and spending more than a billion dollars from special interests to snag reelection in 2012.<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 "Barack Obama (D): Candidate summary, 2012 cycle/Source of funds"] (betw. March–June 2013). Opensecrets.org website. 34% Individual contributions, 67% large and corporate.
*[https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php "2012 presidential race/Overall spending"] (betw. August–September 2015). OpenSecrets.org website. These special interests count of over $1 billion may have decreased at least for a time since August–September 2015, where a grand total of individual contributions of less than $1 billion is reflected, but the grand total is presumably incomplete (shown, for example, by the uncounted University of California contributions revealed when comparing the subtotal from the time before August–September 2015 to the time afterwards, the subtotal thus ''increasing''), has every chance of remaining close to its precise revised estimated amount at the beginning of that time (of $964 million) and does not include Super PAC contributions, which is ''indirect'' spending.
**([https://web.archive.org/web/20150304050735/https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 Link to version of this reference] on March 4, 2015 [whose pertinent subtotal which follows was the same back to the time indicated in the first bulleted reference] which shows $1,212,245 in contributions from the University of California. This is ''vs.'' $1,350,139 in contributions shown in the version indicated by the Internet Archive to have been published between August–September 2015 and shown in versions at least for a time thereafter [version retrieved on February 7, 2016 shows the same amount].)</ref>
Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent [[John McCain]] in 2008 and declined to endorse Obama for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 presidential election]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [https://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

'''Primary election'''

In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democrat nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by [[Jill Stanek]]), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref>—including the Born Alive ones,<ref>Multiple references:
*Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[https://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''[[New York Sun]]''.
*Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>Multiple references:
*''Politi-Fact''. "[https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter.
*Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the [[National Organization for Women]].<ref>Multiple references:
*Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''.
*Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''.
*Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''[[Time Magazine]]''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''The New York Times''.</ref><ref>Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''[[Huffington Post]]''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20130414215754/https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''[[ABC News]]''.</ref>}}As the contest in Iowa drew near and the former First Lady's inevitability was being usurped by a challenger, Hillary Clinton organizers began circulating rumors that Obama was secretly a Muslim.<ref>[https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/barackemail/ Obama Under the Clinton Microscope], By JEFF ZELENY, ''The New York Times'', December 10, 2007</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/06/clinton-volunteers-anti-obama-e-mail-causes-stir/ Clinton volunteer's sending of anti-Obama e-mail causes stir]. December 6, 2007. CNN</ref><ref>[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=92143 Hillary Clinton Press Release - Sen. Obama Rewrites History], December 2, 2007, references Obama in the Muslim school in Indonesia in 3rd grade, quoting the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', 3/15/07</ref><ref>[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article1995587.ece Obama ‘was educated in madrassa’], Tim Reid and Tom Baldwin, ''[[The Times of London]]'', January 20, 2007.</ref> Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote,<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''[[Newsweek]]''.</ref><ref>''[[RealClearPolitics]]''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent,<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]." [[MSNBC]]</ref> when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>

'''Jeremiah Wright controversy'''
[[File:Obamaatcampdavid.jpg|thumb|right|President Obama in Evergreen Chapel]]
{{See also|Barack Obama and Liberation Theology}}
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts Trinity United Church of Christ Website (Barack Hussein Obama's Church)]</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>[https://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines], March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black [[South Africa]]ns, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11], [[ABC News]]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/ Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago], [[Fox News]] May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA Today, [https://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS''], by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081211092533/https://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm ''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"'']</ref>

===Born Alive record resurfaces===
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by [[Jill Stanek]].</ref><ref>''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''[[National Right to Life Committee]]''. "[https://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by [[Jill Stanek]]. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''[[CBN]] News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[https://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''[[New York Sun]]''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[https://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''[[National Right to Life Committee]]''.</ref>

'''Result'''
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''The New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency,<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref> which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''The New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

===2012===
:''Main article: [[Presidential Election 2012]]''
During his campaigns, Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" and was portrayed as saying that entrepreneurs and employers deserve no credit for building their businesses.<ref>Multiple references:
*Zuckerman, Mortimer B. (July 16, 2010). [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina "Obama's anti-business policies are our economic Katrina"]. ''U.S. News and World Report'' website.
*Barnes, Fred (July 22, 2009). [https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp "An anti-business president"]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38. Retrieved at The Weekly Standard website. See [[The Weekly Standard]].
*Shedlock, Mike (August 20, 2010). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html "Small businesses are not hiring—Why should they?"] Blogspot website/Mish's global economic trend analysis.
*Wright, C. Edmund (February 12, 2012). [https://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html "Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring"]. American Thinker website. See [[American Thinker]].</ref> On March 1, 2013 Obama issued [[Executive Order|executive orders]] to implement his [[Budget sequester|sequester]] of budget cuts which<ref>Bedard, Paul (February 27, 2013). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-boosts-obama-job-cut-threat-of-750000-to-2-million/article/2522664?custom_click=rss "Sequester hype: DNC adds 1.25 million job cuts to Obama's 750,000"]. ''Washington Examiner'' website. Article located by [[Weasel Zippers]] website.</ref> has been widely criticized for destroying jobs in what was an anemic and fragile recovery.<ref>Foys, Bob (February 26, 2013). [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-26/news/chi-20130226-foys_briefs_1_sequester-president-obama-press-secretary-jay-carney "President Obama's sequester"]. ''Chicago Tribune'' website. See [[Chicago Tribune]].</ref>

Warren L. Dean Jr., an adjunct professor of law at [[Georgetown University]] Law Center, wrote:
*{{obama income inequality}}

Obama's illegal domestic spying on political opponents and [[FISA abuse]] began in June 2012 before the November 2012 presidential election and was continued beyond his term of office by holdovers.<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/24/evidence-of-obama-administration-political-surveillance-beginning-mid-2012/</ref>

According to a [[NBC News]] poll, from August 2014, Obama's approval rating was a dismal 40%,<ref>Murray, Mark (August 5, 2014). [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-americans-dissatisfied-economy "Poll: Obama’s approval rating hits all-time low"]. MSNBC website. See [[MSNBC]]</ref> showing that six in ten Americans disapproved of his [[liberal]] policies. Given that liberals frequently engage in [[Liberal lies|deceit]], the actual approval ratings could be much lower. When Obama left office, the same pollsters who prognosticated a blowout win for Hillary Clinton maintained Obama's approval rating was above 50%.

===Birth certificate controversies===
: ''Main article: [[Barack Obama Controversies#Birth Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011,<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''.</ref> a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''[[Fox News]]''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2014/02/obama-longform.jpg Certificate of Live Birth]." Originally ordered by Obama to be posted on ''WhiteHouse.gov'', but it is no longer there.</ref>[[Donald Trump]], who had been critical of Obama for allowing the divisiveness to linger was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref> and has been credited with bringing final resolution to the issue. The birth certificates of Michelle Robinson, which would disclosure her birth-sex, and the two children which would clarify their birth parentage, however, remain undisclosed.

The following is a synopsis of previous events leading up to the release:

Hillary Clinton top advisor [[Sidney Blumenthal]], and his son, Max Blumenthal, were the origin of the rumors in 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim in order to stir up fear among white Democrats and women, intended for Hillary's benefit.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-islamophobic-crusade/ The Great Islamophobic Crusade], CBSNEWS, December 19, 2010. cbsnews.com</ref> McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher relayed, "Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya."<ref>https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html</ref> Snope's has identified a claim that a 1991 promotional booklet by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, touted Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii" as being true.<ref>http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp</ref>

[[Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign|Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign]] team then began spreading [[Islamophobic]] rumors that Obama was a [[Muslim]] schooled in a ''madrassa'' as a child in Indonesia.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/bill-clinton-barack-obama-bromance-long-slow-making Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: an alliance long and slow in the making], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080506093354/http://www.stop-obama.org/?page_id=23 Who is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?] Mission Statement, stop-obama.org</ref> A group registered as People United Means Action (PUMA) was made up of Hillary Clinton supporters who not only opposed Barack Obama's nomination but also sought to delegitimize his presidency.<ref>https://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> PUMA members charged that the media directed [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]] at Clinton during the 2008 primary campaign and expressed anger at [[Democratic Party]] leaders' failure to speak out or otherwise respond appropriately.

Hillary Clinton had received a majority of votes in the 2008 Democratic primaries and PUMA felt the [[Superdelegate]]s robbed Hillary of the nomination.

'''Retribution killings'''

Obama transformed the Bush administration War on Terror from a preventative measure against terrorism to a cry for vengeance, mob bloodlust, and retribution killings which spawned a fresh, new, and larger cycle of violence.

On May 1, 2011, Obama misled the public when he announced <ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''White House''.</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf1SLhNoUNY Nobel Prize Winner with a kill list].</ref> that Osama bin Laden was "killed in a firefight" after a U.S. special operations group infiltrated a compound in [[Abbottabad raid|Abottobad]], Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''The New York Times''. "[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''[[NPR]]''. "[https://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]."</ref> Attacks, murders, and kidnappings of Americans have since escalated as reprisals for bin Laden's death. [[Al Qaeda]], once broken and on the run, operates openly as the jihad has now become global. Relations with Pakistan, a longtime ally throughout the Cold War and War on Terror, became strained. The government of Pakistan denied White House claims it allowed Americans to kill Muslims on its territory.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[https://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''Fox News''.</ref> For all his duplicity and criticism of the War on Terror, Obama experienced only a temporary blip in approval ratings.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[https://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[https://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref><ref>''[[CBS News]]/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref>

An NBC investigation revealed Obama was informed of bin Laden's whereabouts one full year before he attempted to use it as an election year issue. NBC further reported that there was no "firefight" at all, contradicting what the president told the nation.<ref>[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3077864/NBC-investigatin-says-bama-DID-edit-role-Pakistan-killing-Bin-Laden-change-facts-credit.html NBC investigation claims Obama knew where bin Laden was ONE YEAR before 2011 raid and backs Seymour Hersh's claim Pakistan intelligence hid al-Qaeda chief], [[Daily Mail ]]</ref> As early as the day after bin Laden was executed, it was learned bin Laden was not armed in the alleged "firefight" that Obama claimed took place.

'''Defends Mohammad'''

After the [[Benghazi terrorist attack]] which his administration knowingly and fraudulently blamed on the creator of an irreverent YouTube video critical of the founder of Islam, Obama made a speech at the UN in which he said, {{Cquote|The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.<ref>https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly</ref>}}
Four Americans died in the terrorist action intended to commemorate the [[9/11 attack]]s. The attack occurred on the US Consulate at Benghazi, part of the territory of the United States. Administration officials did nothing to repel the attack in progress while huddling to discuss the domestic political ramifications for the upcoming presidential election, less than two months away. The creator of the video was jailed on bogus charges unrelated to the video. In 2015, a series of terrorist attacks in France, Denmark and the United States claimed the lives of at least 15 people with dozens injured, including security and police officers, motivated by Muslim extremists defending what, in their view were, unflattering depictions of the founder of Islam, [[Mohammad]].

'''Voting irregularities'''

According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [https://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''[[National Review Online]]''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has [[Politico]]'s Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart.com'' Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [https://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''[[Politico]]''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include [[The Blaze]]'s Billy Hallowell,<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref> [[Breitbart News Network|Breitbart]]'s Joel Pollack, [[Human Events]]' Erick Erickson,<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''[[Human Events]]''.</ref> Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick,<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''[[Newsbusters]]''.</ref> Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com,<ref>Rick Moran. [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> and various writers at [[Discover the Networks]] (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''[[Discover the Networks]]''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''[[Breitbart.com]]''.</ref>

'''"You didn't build that"'''===
{{main|You didn't build that}}
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama attacked [[capitalism]] in a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>[https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia], White House</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

'''Results'''

On November 6, 2012 Barack Obama won reelection with 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/ 2012 Presidential Election], Politico</ref> Obama received 51% of the popular vote (65,899,660 votes) to Romney's 47% (60,932,152 votes).<ref>[https://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012presgeresults.pdf Official 2012 Presidential General Election Results], [[Federal Election Commission]]</ref>

==2009–2017: Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
The [[liberal claptrap]] that elected Obama seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama had millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them were fake.<ref>Jackson, David (August 24, 2012). [http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_ "Obama has millions of fake Twitter followers"]. USA Today website/The Oval blog. See [[USA Today]].</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact, he relied almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Five years into Obama's presidency the number of people holding jobs still was 3 million below the all-time high of 138 million<ref>The effectiveness of [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|Stimulus]] and deficits: [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112811 Job growth under President Obama's first term;] Source: [[United States Department of Labor]].</ref> workers – despite an increase of 10 million people in population over the same period of time.<ref>[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112809 U.S. Population growth during Obama's first four years in office.] Source: [[U.S. Census Bureau]].</ref> Despite the "Hope and Change" rhetoric, from 2007 to 2017, the rate of Americans ages 10 to 24 who died by [[suicide]] rose by 56 percent, from 6.8 deaths per 100,000 persons to 10.6.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/why-has-there-been-a-56-percent-increase-in-suicide-among-young-americans-in-just-10-years/</ref> Under Obama and Senate Democrats<ref>The Democrat-controlled Senate did not propose, vote on, or pass a budget for nearly five years. [https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/23/politics/senate-budget-bill/index.html Senate passes its first budget proposal in four years,] Ted Barrett and Alison Harding, CNN, March 23, 2013.</ref> budget management, the United States suffered its largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''[[Congressional Budget Office]]''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''[[Congressional Budget Office]]''.</ref> in history and its credit-worthiness downgraded from [[Standard and Poor's]]. Obama assured Americans that unemployment would not rise above 8% if his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted, however, it rose and stagnated in the 8-10% range<ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref>[[United States Bureau of Labor Statistics]]. [https://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''[[United States Department of Labor]]''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref> for the entirety of his first term.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged [[radical left]]ists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [https://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''[[Politico]]''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

Obama appointed numerous former communists and [[Red diaper baby|red diaper babies]] to important administration positions.<ref>McQuillan, Karin (June 3, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/barack-obama-populated-the-us-government-with-communists Barack Obama populated the US government with communists]. ''LifeSiteNews'' (from the ''American Thinker''). Retrieved June 4, 2019.</ref> He abused his presidential power several times during his presidency.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (June 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/12/pollak-joe-biden-democrats-loved-obamas-abuses-of-presidential-power/ Pollak: Joe Biden, Democrats Loved Obama’s Abuses of Presidential Power]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 12, 2019.</ref>

===Domestic policy===
Obama's economic [[stimulus]] package in response to the [[Crash of 2008]] took seven years to return [[unemployment]] to historically acceptable levels. Economic growth remained below 2.0% throughout his two terms as poverty and income inequality increased.

Obama sought to end the "schoolhouse-to-jailhouse pipeline" by bribing public school districts through grants for not having law enforcement authorities arrest students for arrestable offenses – this policy led to a major school shooting in Florida over a year after he left office.<ref>Multiple references:
*Richardson, Valerie (March 5, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/nikolas-cruz-avoided-police-scrutiny-help-obama-po/ Obama policies to end ‘schoolhouse-to-jailhouse pipeline’ helped keep Nikolas Cruz off police radar]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
*Sperry, Paul (March 1, 2018). [https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html Behind Cruz's Florida Rampage, Obama's School-Leniency Policy]. ''RealClear Investigations''. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
*Evans, M. Catharine (February 26, 2018). [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/how_federal_funding_kept_nikolas_cruz_from_getting_arrested_and_unable_to_purchase_firearms.html How federal funding kept Nikolas Cruz from getting arrested and unable to purchase firearms]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved March 5, 2018.</ref>

Under Barack Obama's leadership, an Inspector General appointed by Obama discovered, for the first time in history, that the top two personnel appointed by Obama to head the [[FBI]] had both violated the law.<ref>https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/09/indicting-a-sandwich/</ref> Additionally, the Obama Administration prosecuted more whistleblowers as spies than other administrations.<ref>Mora, Edwin (October 3, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/03/flashback-obamas-war-on-whistleblowers-more-prosecuted-as-spies-than-ever-before/ Flashback–‘Obama’s War on Whistleblowers’: More Prosecuted as Spies than Ever Before]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved October 3, 2019.</ref>

====Obamacare: 8 years of stagnant growth====
[[File:CRIMINALS-600x400.jpg|right|350px|thumb|President Obama and [[Chuck Schumer]] with Democrat megadonor and convicted [[rape|rapist]] [[Harvey Weinstein]]. <ref>https://usbacklash.org/harvey-weinstein-caught-on-recorded-nypd-phone-sting-telling-his-sexual-assault-victim-it-wont-happen-again/</ref> Schumer, who shepherded Obamacare through Congress, later called it a mistake.<ref>https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/chuck-schumer-passing-obamacare-in-2010-was-a-mistake/449700/</ref> ]]
{{main article|Obamacare}}
Not wanting the [[Financial crisis of 2008]] "to go to waste," America embarked on a grand socialist experiment. Thanks to "stupidity of the American voter" in the words of the bill's author, Obama passed his signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on March 10, 2010. Also known as Obamacare. In keeping with his progressive ideals, the bill used coercive measures to force Americans to buy insurance they didn't want or need.

The employer mandate – the requirement that employers pay 50% of a workers insurance – held down new job creation and wages. Overall [[GDP]] growth barely exceeded 1% throughout Obama's years, while population continued to grow at a 2.5% rate, thus steadily impoverishing the nation as a whole.

The act originated in the Democrat-controlled House, was amended and passed the Senate just prior to Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]]'s death with no Republicans and 44 Democrats voting to oppose. 60 Democrats in total lost their seats afterward in the 2010 Midterms.

In what was construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill if given the chance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English}}</ref> After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the Democratic [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

The [[individual mandate]] required everyone to purchase health care insurance or suffer punitive measures, with the typical [[Marxist]] provisions for exemptions and transfer payments from taxpayers to protected classes of Democrat voters. The individual mandate was upheld by the [[Supreme Court]] with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] – himself the victim of Obama era [[FISA abuse]] – casting the tie-breaking vote.

The forced transfer of wealth from job creation to healthcare (including illegal immigrants) impoverished the country and left a generation of younger Obama supporters unemployed or underemployed.

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]</ref><ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]</ref><ref>[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]</ref><ref>[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]</ref>]]

{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=Washington Post.[[Newsweek]] Interactive Co. LLC|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=https://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=[[New York Post]]|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=[[Heritage Foundation]]|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''[[The Blaze]]''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=[[Forbes]]|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''[[Ludwig von Mises Institute]]''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. [[Heritage Foundation|The Heritage Network]].</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220 Obamacare: Unemployment You Can Believe In], [[Human Events]]</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. [[Heritage Foundation|The Heritage Network]].</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 19). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/03/19/mad-money-cramer-health-care-passage-will-topple-stock-market 'Mad Money' Cramer: Health Care Passage 'Will Topple the Stock Market']. ''[[Newsbusters]]''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[https://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession."<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176 Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future]</ref>

According to conservative investigative journalist [[Peter Schweizer]], Obama weaponized the regulatory process to help his friends buy businesses that had been devalued through Obama Administration policies.<ref>Kraychik, Robert (March 20, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/20/smash-grab-schweizer-explains-how-obama-weaponized-regulations-enrich-buddies/ ‘Smash and Grab’: Schweizer Explains How Obama Weaponized Regulations to Enrich His Buddies]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 20, 2018.</ref>

'''Stimulus'''
{{See also|Recovery Summer}}
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass a sweeping Stimulus package<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1).<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''[[Library of Congress]]''. "[https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''[[IRS]]''.</ref> The report of the Congressional Budget Office mandated by law stated that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his promise of bipartisanship,<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''[[Washington Times]]''.</ref> the bill passed the House 244-188 on January 28, 2009, with 11 Democrats voting with the entire Republican caucus against,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of [[Backdoor spending authority#Backdoor tax expenditures|backdoor tax expenditures]]<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest direct [[new spending]] on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming millions of Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate his accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''[[Fox News]]''.</ref>

'''[[Sequestration]]'''

According to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning journalist [[Bob Woodward]] of the ''[[Washington Post]]'', Obama misled the American people in a Presidential debate only two weeks before the 2012 election when he said, "The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,”<ref>[http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-22/opinions/37238840_1_jack-lew-treasury-secretary-rob-nabors Obama’s sequester deal-changer,] By Bob Woodward, ''Washington Post'', February 22, 2013.</ref> when in fact his chief budget negotiator and current Chief of Staff, [[Jack Lew]], made a call to Democrat [[Harry Reid]] at 2:30 pm on July 27, 2011 with the proposal after clearing it with Obama,<ref>[https://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/fact-check-woodward-wrote-that-obama-administration-proposed-sequester/ Fact-check: Woodward wrote that Obama administration proposed sequester]. [[The Daily Caller]]</ref> as fully documented in Woodward's book, ''The Price of Politics''. Federal Reserve Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]] warned of immediate jobloss of about 750,000 jobs – about the same level as under George W. Bush<ref>[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109262 Monthly Jobloss under George W. Bush, Jan 2007 - Jan 2009]. See also [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109266 Initial Unemployment Claims] over the same period, annualized. Source: [[U.S. Department of Labor]], Bureau of Labor Statistics.</ref> – if Obama's budget and economic plans were allowed to take effect.<ref>[https://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/bernanke-burden-recovery/ Bernanke: Spending cuts add 'significant' burden to recovery,] By Annalyn Kurtz, CNN February 26, 2013.</ref>

Woodward, who's reporting on [[Watergate]] is credited with toppling the administration of [[Richard Nixon]], told Wolf Blitzer of CNN he was told by a senior White House official he'd regret talking about the President Obama's positions on the sequester.<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2 Bob Woodward: White House Threatened Me On Sequester,] businessinsider.com</ref>

'''Spreading poverty and raising the debt'''

Following the 2011 debt ceiling standoff between Obama and House Republicans,<ref name=Swann-Aug>{{cite web|url=https://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8 |title=United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered to 'AA+' on Political Risks and Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative |publisher=[[Standard and Poor's]] |date=August 5, 2011 |accessdate=April 3, 2013}}</ref> the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''[[U.S. Census Bureau]]''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large, his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [https://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the country saddled with an $18 trillion [[national debt]] and climbing.<ref>During Obama's first two years in office, the rate of new U.S. federal debt added per year to its total tripled the rate of new debt accumulated by Bush to place the U.S. on a war footing, and during Obama's first six years in office, the total National Debt has nearly doubled ($7.5 trillion added). See [[National Debt]].</ref> One of his most well-known tactics was blaming someone else, such as George W. Bush, for all his failures instead of taking responsibility. Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2010 with no national consensus or [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why a net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal.<ref>[http://cbo.gov/publication/43471 Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act], Congressional Budget Office</ref>

During Obama's presidency, the national debt nearly doubled, going from $10.6 trillion to $19.9 trillion.<ref>Meyer, Ali (January 21, 2018). [https://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-leaves-office-debt/ Obama Leaves Office Having Added $9.3 Trillion to Debt]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved May 16, 2018.</ref>

====Illegal immigration====
[[File:Obama detention.jpg|right|300px|thumb|A U.N. report cited Obama for holding 100,000 children in cages.<ref>https://qz.com/1291470/photos-immigrant-children-detained-at-the-placement-center-in-2014/</ref><ref>https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-outlets-retract-story-claiming-trump-administration-has-detained-100000-children-in-migration-related-us-detention_3151966.html</ref>]]
The Obama Administration was weak on [[illegal immigration]]. It established the [[Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals]] program (DACA)<ref>Munro, Neil (July 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/21/daca-seven-facts-obamas-amnesty-decree/ DACA: Seven Facts About Obama’s Amnesty Decree]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Nolte, John (September 5, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2017/09/05/14-things-msm-wont-tell-daca/ 14 Things the MSM Won’t Tell You About DACA]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Klein, Aaron (September 3, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/03/obama-administration-usurped-constitution-bypassed-congress-grant-de-dacto-amnesty-dreamers/ How the Obama Administration Bypassed Congress to Grant De Facto Amnesty to Young Illegal Aliens]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.</ref> in 2012, which gave protection and work permits (jobs which could have gone to American citizens) to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. In his 2013 memoir, liberal Democrat U.S. Representative [[Luis Gutiérrez]], an ally of Obama on immigration issues, stated that Obama did not believe that DACA was legally possible until he enacted it.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (September 5, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/05/luis-gutierrez-daca-2013-obama-said-illegal/ Luis Gutiérrez on DACA in 2013: Obama Said It Was Illegal]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 6, 2017.</ref> The Obama Administration was able to give green cards to about 40,000 of those DACA illegals.<ref>Munro, Neil (September 1, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/01/daca-backdoor-granted-green-cards-45000-illegals/ 45,000 Illegals Using DACA Backdoor to Get Green Cards]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.</ref><ref>Binder, John (September 26, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/26/feds-confirm-40k-illegal-aliens-shielded-by-daca-already-given-amnesty/ Feds Confirm 40K Illegal Aliens Shielded by DACA Already Given Amnesty]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 26, 2017.</ref> Additionally, it was reported the administration let 2.2 million deportable illegal immigrants, including 400,000 with criminal convictions, remain on the streets,<ref>Price, Bob (April 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/22/report-ice-failures-under-obama-administration-leave-more-than-2-2-million-supervised-aliens-on-streets/ REPORT: ICE Failures Under Obama Administration Leave More Than 2.2 Million ‘Supervised’ Aliens on Streets]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> while releasing 68,000 with criminal records in 2013 alone.<ref>Mass, Warren (April 1, 2014). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/17963-obama-administration-releases-68-000-illegal-immigrant-criminals Obama Administration Releases 68,000 Illegal Immigrant Criminals]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 8, 2018.</ref> He nearly doubled the number of illegal immigrant juveniles with the EB-4 visa, which gave them legal status.<ref>Binder, John (May 30, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/30/obama-nearly-doubled-number-juvenile-illegal-aliens-given-amnesty-says-expert/ Obama Nearly Doubled Number of Juvenile Illegal Aliens Given Amnesty, Says Expert]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 30, 2017.</ref> The Administration "administratively closed" up to 200,000 deportation cases, meaning those illegal immigrants were free to go where they wanted in the U.S.<ref>Bedard, Paul (August 28, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/200000-deportation-cases-quietly-closed-under-obama/article/2632724 200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 28, 2017.</ref> The administration also obstructed deportation cases<ref>Bedard, Paul (October 9, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-memo-shows-obama-team-obstructed-deportation-cases/article/2636910 Group: Memo shows Obama team obstructed deportation cases]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved October 9, 2017.</ref> and blocked 550,000 illegals from deportation.<ref>Bedard, Paul (December 6, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-blocked-deportation-of-550000-illegals-more-than-atlantas-population/article/2642694 Obama blocked deportation of 550,000 illegals, more than Atlanta's population]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 6, 2017.</ref> The Obama Administration issued 140,000 U visas, which are given to illegal immigrants who testify against criminals in court and allow them to eventually gain citizenship, massively expanding the program.<ref>Munro, Neil (June 27, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/27/u-vsa-becomes-backdoor-amnesty-for-200000-plus/ Obama Backdoor Amnesty Provided ‘U visas’ For 140,000 Illegal Aliens]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 28, 2017.</ref> The Obama Administration's failure to close an immigration loophole caused over 250,000 illegal minors to be separated from their parents,<ref>Binder, John (June 19, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/19/immigration-loophole-separated-more-than-quarter-million-child-border-crossers-under-obama/ Obama’s Inaction on Immigration Loophole Separated More Than Quarter Million Child Border Crossers]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 19, 2018.</ref><ref>Spiering, Charlie (June 21, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/21/obama-criticizes-trump-for-family-separation-but-fails-to-acknowledge-role-in-child-detention/ Obama Criticizes Trump for Family Separation, but Ignores Own Record of Separating Families]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 21, 2018.</ref><ref>Duke, Selwyn (June 22, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/29349-obama-separated-families-and-detained-kids-media-said-nothing Obama Separated Families and Detained Kids, Media Said Nothing]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 22, 2018.</ref> and those minors faced significantly worse conditions in their holding facilities than under the Trump Administration, which also took tougher action.<ref>Price, Bob (June 20, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/06/20/trump-vs-obama-two-approaches-to-migrant-families-and-minors/ Trump vs. Obama: Two Approaches to Migrant Families and Minors]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 20, 2018.</ref>

In 2014, President Obama announced the [[DAPA]] program, which would have expanded protections from deportation to a total of about 5 million illegal immigrants. This order was blocked by a federal judge,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-obama-immigration-executive-action.html Federal judge temporarily blocks Obama's immigration executive action]. ''Fox News''. February 17, 2015. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> upheld by an appeals court,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/09/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-immigration-plan.html Appeals court rules against Obama immigration plan]. ''Fox News''. November 10, 2015. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> and a split 4–4 Supreme Court ruling upheld the appeals court ruling.<ref>de Vogue, Ariane; Kopan, Tal (June 23, 2016). [https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/ Deadlocked Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan]. ''CNN''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref>

Under President Obama, [[Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] released 564 convicted sex offender illegal immigrants, in many cases because various countries refused to accept them back.<ref>Price, Bob (May 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/22/obamas-ice-released-nearly-600-sex-offenders-countries-refused-deportation/ Obama’s ICE Released Nearly 600 Sex Offenders after Countries Refused Deportation]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 22, 2017.</ref> In May 2017, a whistleblower revealed that the Obama Administration knowingly let illegal immigrant [[MS-13]] gang members into the country.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (May 24, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/24/whistleblower-dhs-knowingly-let-ms-13-gang-members/ Obama admin knew gang members were part of illegal immigrant surge: Whistleblower]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 24, 2017.</ref><ref>Saavedra, Ryan (May 24, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/24/obama-let-admitted-ms-13-members-whistleblower-says/ Obama Let in Admitted MS-13 Members, Whistleblower Says]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 25, 2017.</ref> In January 2018, the DHS inspector general reported that the Obama Administration did not identify and arrest terrorist aliens classified as "highest risk" due to them not being screened.<ref>Mora, Edwin (January 11, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/01/11/ig-obamas-ice-missed-opportunities-arrest-high-risk-terror-linked-aliens/ IG: Obama’s ICE ‘Missed Opportunities’ to Arrest High-Risk Terror-Linked Aliens]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 13, 2018.</ref><ref>Harrington, Elizabeth (January 16, 2018). [https://freebeacon.com/national-security/obamas-ice-didnt-follow-procedure-for-checking-illegal-immigrants-ties-to-terrorism/ Obama’s ICE Didn’t Follow Procedure For Checking Illegal Immigrants’ Ties to Terrorism]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved January 16, 2018.</ref>

The Obama Administration moved illegal migrant teens across state lines so they could have [[abortion]]s.<ref>Freiburger, Calvin (October 24, 2018). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-admin-moved-illegal-immigrant-teens-across-state-lines-for-abortions Obama admin moved illegal immigrant teens across state lines for abortions, emails reveal]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved October 24, 2018.</ref> Its policies led to an increase in illegal immigration.<ref>Munro, Neil (May 23, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/23/senate-hearing-obamas-daca-and-flores-orders-spiked-illegal-migration/ Senate Hearing: Obama’s DACA and Flores Orders Spiked Illegal Migration]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 24, 2019.</ref>

After assuming office in 2017, the [[Trump Administration]] made [[Donald Trump achievements|a large change in its policies]] towards illegal immigration compared to the Obama Administration.<ref>Llorente, Elizabeth (April 17, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/17/sessions-immigration-policies-mark-big-change-from-obama-policies.html Sessions' immigration policies mark big change from Obama policies]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 18, 2017.</ref> Secretary of Homeland Security [[John Kelly]] of the Trump Administration strongly criticized the Obama Administration for its failures regarding illegal immigration and national security.<ref>Munro, Neil (April 18, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/18/dhs-kelly-sacred-duty-protect-america/ DHS Kelly Slams Obama’s Policies, Proclaims ‘Sacred Duty’ To Protect America]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 18, 2017.</ref><ref>Mora, Edwin (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/21/dhs-chief-obama-nothing-truly-secure-border/ DHS Chief: Obama Did ‘Nothing’ to ‘Truly’ Secure Border]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref>

'''Rising migration levels'''

Because of the Obama Administration's [[open borders]] policies, total migration into the U.S. in 2016 and 2017 reached record high levels, at 1.75 million people per year.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (October 31, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/31/total-immigration-us-ties-all-time-record/ Total immigration to U.S. ties all-time record]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved November 1, 2018.</ref><ref>Munro, Neil (October 31, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2018/10/31/obama-migration-record-almost-one-migrant-for-every-two-graduates-in-2016/ Obama’s Migration Record: Almost One Migrant for Every Two Graduates in 2016]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 1, 2018.</ref>

====Soft-on-crime====
The Obama Administration failed to act upon warnings by federal drug investigators and state officials about the growing problem of illegal fentanyl as the drug killed 70,000 people between 2013 and 2017.<ref name="SlowFentanyl"/> In fact, the administration softened its enforcement against "low-level nonviolent drug offenses."<ref name="SlowFentanyl">Llorente, Elizabeth (March 13, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-administration-slow-to-answer-early-alarms-about-fentanyl-report Obama administration slow to answer early alarms about fentanyl: report]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 13, 2019.</ref><ref>Hayward, John (March 14, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/03/14/obama-administration-refused-declare-public-health-emergency-fentanyl/ Obama Administration Refused to Declare Public Health Emergency for Fentanyl]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 14, 2019.</ref>

====War on police====
:{{See also|Riots during the Obama Administration}}
Cop killings increased dramatically in Obama's final years.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/police-killed-line-of-duty-increase-2016/</ref> But the groundwork was laid in the early months of Obama's presidency when he made a televised statement that the police "acted stupidly". Obama gave encouragement to [[Black Lives Matter]] and the [[Antifa]] terrorist organization.

====Attacks on Christian religious freedom====
[[File:Schlafly phyllis.jpg|thumbnail|right|140px|[[Phyllis Schlafly]]'s book ''No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom'' documents Obama's attack on religious freedom.<ref>[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/obamas-attack-on-religious-freedom-its-worse-than-you-think Obama’s Attack on Religious Freedom: It’s Worse Than You Think], ''Crises Magazine''</ref>]]
When first running for office Obama angered religious conservatives with his comment about working-class voters in old industrial towns. Obama said, "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008 Obama angers midwest voters with guns and religion remark], The Guardian</ref>

The Obama administration has been widely criticized for his policies which encroach on religious freedom in areas such as: health care, freedom to dissent on matters relating to the [[homosexual agenda]], religious freedom in the military and religious freedom in other spheres of American life.<ref>
*[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/obamas-attack-on-religious-freedom-its-worse-than-you-think Obama’s Attack on Religious Freedom: It’s Worse Than You Think], ''Crises Magazine''
*[http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/obamas-hypocrisy-on-religious-freedom/ Obama’s Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom]
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/15/us-military-losing-christians-because-of-hostile-c/?page=all U.S. military ‘hostile’ to Christians under Obama; morale, retention devastated], ''Washington Times''
*[http://www1.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2015/10/08/senator-seeks-answers-from-obama-on-religious-freedom Obama and Religious Freedom], ''CBN News''
</ref>

In addition, the Obama administration has been criticized for promoting religious freedom for [[Islam|Muslims]] and restricting religious freedom for Christians.<ref>[https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/10/29/the-obama-administration-religious-freedoms-fro-american-muslims-not-american-christians-n2072727 The Obama Administration: Religious Freedoms for American Muslims, Not American Christians], Townhall</ref>

====Environment and energy====
{{See also|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/ Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''The New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref> The Administration spend vast sums of taxpayer money on futile environmentalist efforts, including $4.1 million on a study that attempted to find a connection between pollution and obesity.<ref>Bleau, Hannah (June 15, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/15/report-obama-administration-spent-over-4-million-on-study-aimed-to-link-pollution-to-childhood-obesity/ Report: Obama Administration Spent over $4 Million on Study Aimed to Link Pollution to Childhood Obesity]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 16, 2019.</ref>

The Obama Administration enacted many environmental regulations and used scientific studies to back up the supposed need for the regulations, but after the [[Trump Administration]] began undoing the Obama-era rules, many of the merits of the studies were found to be dubious.<ref>Lucas, Fred (December 26, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/26/junk-science-studies-behind-obama-regulations-under-fire.html 'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2017.</ref>

====Labor law====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the [[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)|Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act]] – effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

'''9/11 responders'''

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 2, 2011|work=wNYC|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsors agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

'''Diversity over safety'''

During the Obama Administration, the [[Federal Aviation Administration]] issued new hiring rules for air traffic controllers which placed achieving diversity over ensuring that new employees were talented, educated, and even knew what they were doing.<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/02/obama-era-faa-hiring-rules-place-diversity-ahead-airline-safety-attorney-tells-tucker-carlson.html Obama-era FAA hiring rules place diversity ahead of airline safety, attorney tells Tucker Carlson]. ''Fox News''. June 2, 2018. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Duke, Selwyn (June 5, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/29215-danger-in-the-skies-obama-dumbed-down-air-traffic-controllers-with-diversity-rules Danger in the Skies: Obama Dumbed-down Air-traffic Controllers With “Diversity” Rules]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Haverluck, Michael F. (June 3, 2018). [https://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2018/06/03/obama-put-diversity-over-safety-at-faa Obama put diversity over safety at FAA]. ''OneNewsNow''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Poor, Jeff (June 2, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/06/02/aviation-attorney-to-tucker-carlson-faa-is-putting-diversity-ahead-of-safety/ Aviation Attorney to Tucker Carlson: FAA Is Putting Diversity Ahead of Safety]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.</ref>

====Meeting with an atheist group====
:''See also:'' [[Atheism and American politics]]
The Obama administration became the first administration to met with an [[Atheism|atheist]] group. It met with the Secularism Coalition for America which is a coalition which represents the [[American Atheists]], the American [[Secular Humanism|Humanist]] Association, and the Military Association of Atheists and [[Freethought|Freethinkers]].

According to the ''USA Today'', the group met with the White House officials to "discuss problems that they believe are fueled by religion."<ref name="content.usatoday.com">[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/02/atheists-meet-with-white-house-officials/1#.VypYTzEn_7Y Atheists meet with White House officials], USA Today</ref> Among the issues the group discussed were the issues of "military proselytizing" by [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] Christian members of the military and faith-based initiatives<ref name="content.usatoday.com"/>

====Gender politics====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated with President Clinton and passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while barring openly gay [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=[[Washington Times]]|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, "(Obama's) a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=[[Time Magazine]]|publisher=Time Inc.|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law – it passed a day later by a vote of 250–175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65–31.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=[[The Guardian]]|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref> The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/>

On the day Rev. [[Jim Jones]] left for [[Jonestown]], [[Harvey Milk]] wrote to Jones and said "my name is cut into stone in support of you - and your people."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=24taDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT254&lpg=PT254&dq=%22my+name+is+cut+into+stone+in+support+of+you+-+and+your+people.%22&source=bl&ots=ynq76x7v9F&sig=ACfU3U1baSHsO8-hnZ5MVbDiNeBbUn9TbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz8vLNi6XgAhWG1IMKHfWVCZQQ6AEwB3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22my%20name%20is%20cut%20into%20stone%20in%20support%20of%20you%20-%20and%20your%20people.%22&f=false Harvey Milk: His Lives and Death], Lillian Faderman, Yale University Press, May 22, 2018.</ref> President Obama honored Milk posthumously with the [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] on the anniversary on his death.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKOv8HA76o President Obama Honors Harvey Milk With Presidential Medal of Freedom], youtube.</ref>

====Civil service corruption and the revolving door====
Obama criticized the "revolving door" of government and business.<ref>"We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely, and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave." [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-welcoming-senior-staff-and-cabinet-secretaries-white-house REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN WELCOMING SENIOR STAFF AND CABINET SECRETARIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE,] January 21, 2009. [[White House]]</ref> After appointing [[Peter Orszag]] his first Budget Director to dole out the stimulus cash, Orszag resigned to become Citigroup's Vice Chairman of Global Banking. Citigroup was the recipient of $476 billion in [[bailout]] money - more than any other bank - after the disastrous [[Financial crisis of 2008]].<ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/03/citibank_received_more_bailout.html Citigroup Received More Bailout Money Than Any Other Bank,] By Nitasha Tiku, 3/16/11.</ref> Before the bailout, Orszag's expert opinion of the chances of a mortgage meltdown was 1 in 500,000.<ref>[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/stiglitzrisk.pdf Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard,] by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Jonathan M. Orszag and Peter R. Orszag. Fannie Mae Papers, Volume 1, Issue 2, March 2002, Conclusion p.6.</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Obama and the media.jpg|right|250px|thumb|[[Ben Rhodes]] is the Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, and Deputy National Security Advisor to [[Susan Rice]]. Rhodes is also the brother of David Rhodes, President of CBS News.]]
Obama launched a global anti-Christian jihad with his support for [[al-Qaeda]] and the [[Islamic State]] to overthrow the governments of Libya and Syria. The Black African [[slave trade]] was revived in Libya after Obama removed [[Muammar Gaddafi]], an ally in the [[War on Terror]].<ref>[https://womensenews.org/story/international-policyunited-nations/150527/un-sex-violence-envoy-focusing-syria-iraq UN Sex Violence Envoy: Focusing on Syria, Iraq]</ref><ref>[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower], Heritage Foundation</ref> Obama, who was raised a Muslim<ref>[https://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/was_obama_blood.html Was Obama bloodied by madrassa story?]</ref><ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/11952/obama-muslim-childhood Obama's Muslim Childhood]</ref> and is not a descendant of slaves, criticized Christians and the Crusades as reports of thousands of women and girls being captured, sold, and raped flooded in.<ref>[https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/579393/ISIS-Michelle-Obama-prostitute-justifies-raping-slave-girls-Koran ISIS calls Michelle Obama a PROSTITUTE and justifies raping slave girls with the KORAN]</ref><ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-speech-at-prayer-breakfast-called-offensive-to-christians/2015/02/05/6a15a240-ad50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html Critics pounce after Obama talks Crusades, slavery at prayer breakfast], Washington Post</ref> Additionally, Obama overemphasized political correctness in U.S. national security policy, something disliked by CIA officials.<ref>Dorman, Sam (November 5, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/media/book-cia-staff-obama-white-house CIA staff complained about Obama White House's political correctness, new book claims]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 5, 2019.</ref>

The number of jihadis worldwide has grown by a factor of 4 or 5 at least, since Obama took the reins of power as Commander-in-Chief.<ref>The number of Islamic extremists susceptible to jihadist recruitment during the George W. Bush administration worldwide was estimated at 12,000; the Islamic State alone by 2015 had estimates of a standing army of jihadis as high as 70,000 to 200,000.</ref> Remarkably, the ''[[New York Times]]'' was critical of Obama's incessant boasting about the killing of [[Osama bin Laden|bin Laden]].<ref>Baker, Peter and Shear, Michael D. (April 27, 2012). [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/critics-pounce-on-obamas-trumpeting-of-bin-laden-death.html "Obama trumpets killing of Bin Laden, and critics pounce"]. ''The New York Times'' website. See [[The New York Times]].</ref> With the complete disengagement of American troops from [[Iraq]] and the assassination of [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[Islamic State]] arose and recruitment of global [[jihad]]is multiplied exponentially.

Obama entered his second term mocking and ridiculing the idea that Russia was America's prime geo-strategic competitor; by the closing days of his presidency, Obama was in a panic fanning the flames of a Third Red Scare. Vladimir Putin and Russia had thoroughly embarrassed Barack Obama on the world stage as Obama withdrew America from its traditional role of global leadership and repudiated the idea of [[American exceptionalism]]. Respect for America degenerated in the world as issues such as transexual bathrooms occupied more of Obama's time and attention than the 12 million homeless refugees Obama had driven from their homes in his failed "[[Arab Spring]]" policy. Having been thoroughly rebuked politically with the election of Donald Trump, as a [[lameduck]] Obama attempted to coverup [[DNC]] scandals uncovered by [[Wikileaks]] by scapegoating Vladimir Putin and fostering an atmosphere of paranoia about Russia, the future, and a Trump presidency.

'''Commander-in-chief'''

As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied by drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama similarly stayed the course or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011, Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''Washington Post''.</ref>
From the Boston Globe:
<blockquote>
'The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.'
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
'The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast.' <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''[[The Boston Globe]]''.</ref>
</blockquote>
A commentator says:
<blockquote>
'Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel.' <ref>[http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.]</ref>
</blockquote>
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

'''National Defense'''

President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012.</ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''[[Human Rights Watch]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref><ref>[https://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''[[Library of Congress]]'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

The Obama Administration accidentally allowed the chipmaker AMD to ship sensitive and important technology to China, despite the significant national security risks.<ref>O'Keeffe, Kate; Spegele, Brian (June 27, 2019). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tried-to-stop-china-acquiring-world-class-chips-china-got-them-anyway-11561646798 How a Big U.S. Chip Maker Gave China the ‘Keys to the Kingdom’]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved June 29, 2019.</ref>

'''Escalates Afghan conflict'''
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
American deaths in [[Afghanistan]] more than doubled in Obama's first few years compared with the preceding eight years of George Bush <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service'''.</ref> as he increased troop strength for no discernible purpose and to "win" unstated objectives. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] and forced [[regime change]] without Congressional authorization in violation of the post-Nixon era reform measure, the [[War Powers Act]].

After he took personal credit for killing [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's successor, [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]] confirmed the [[Benghazi Attack]] which took place on the anniversary of 9/11 and killed more Americans, was motivated by al-Qaeda's desire for revenge.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack], By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN, September 13, 2012.</ref> Bin Laden's death, as Obama's advisers warned, freed up jihadis who swore an oath of allegiance to the 9/11 mastermind to swear allegiance to rival and competing factions. The competing factions advocated the immediate establishment of the Islamic State, rather than after the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy and retaking of Mecca. As was well known, bin Laden always held a controversial and minority position among jihadis on the strategy for global jihad by attacking the United States first. Bin Laden's killing, intended as an election year gimmick, brought Obama no improvement in approval ratings and spawned unprecedented growth in global terror and jihadi recruiting.

Obama needlessly escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=[[PBS]]|language=English}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/>

====Libya and rebirth of the slave trade====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, leader of Libya for 41 years, responded to the violence<ref>[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm There Was No Libyan Peaceful Protest, Just Murderous Gangs and Nic Robertson]</ref> with legitimate steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted to impose [[sanctions]], and later passed a resolution to protect civilians. Obama, without approval from Congress and over the objections of his own National Security staff,<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-libyan-no-fly-zone-means-attacking-libya/ Gates: Libyan no-fly zone means attacking Libya], CBS News</ref> directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Secretary of Defence [[Robert Gates]], National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, and [[White House]] counterterrorism chief [[John O. Brennan]] all opposed the action. Obama later said, "if we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=https://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]], in an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'', suggested this statement was false, writing, "intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=https://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the [[University of Texas]] who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten[ed] civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by ''The New York Times'', which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Gaddafi even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref>[http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.]</ref>
</blockquote>
Gaddafi wrote to Obama and told him he bore no ill will. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 Gaddafi begs Obama to halt 'unjust war' ], [[The Guardian ]]</ref>

'''Syria and Obama's "red line"'''

In 2012, during the [[Syrian Civil War]], President Obama stated that if the Syrian dictator, President [[Bashar al-Assad]] used [[chemical weapon]]s against Syrians, that would be unacceptable and cross a red line. However, after it was confirmed that Assad did use weapons against his people, Obama did practically nothing. He went to Congress to authorize a military strike, but this request was rejected (he had the ability to order a military strike without Congress's approval). Later, the Obama Administration (particularly [[Susan Rice]])<ref name="RiceTakesHeat">Chakraborty, Barnini (April 7, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/susan-rice-obama-colleagues-take-heat-for-past-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html Susan Rice, Obama colleagues take heat for past claims on Syria chemical weapons purge]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.</ref> and the mainstream media<ref>Nash, Charlie (April 7, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/04/07/politifact-pulls-2014-mostly-true-rating-of-john-kerrys-claim-of-eliminating-syrian-chemical-weapons/ PolitiFact Pulls 2014 ‘Mostly True’ Rating of John Kerry’s Claim of Eliminating Syrian Chemical Weapons]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.</ref> claimed they had worked with Syria to remove its chemical weapons. In April 2017, Syria again used chemical weapons against its people, proving their claim wrong.<ref name="RiceTakesHeat"/> The new president, [[Donald Trump]], unlike Obama, quickly ordered a large airstrike against a Syrian airbase.<ref>Griffin, Jennifer; Tomlinson, Lucas (April 7, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/us-missiles-target-syria-airfield-in-response-to-chemical-weapons-attack.html US missiles target Syria airfield in response to chemical weapons attack]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.</ref>

'''Turkey'''

President Obama attempted to overthrow the legitimate government of Turkey, a vital NATO ally. Turkish President [[Recep Erdoğan]] repeatedly warned Obama's support of [[Kurd]]ish forces and [[ISIL]] threatened the NATO alliance. Turkey slowly began establishing closer ties with Russia.

====Hillary Clinton and the FBI's collusion with Russia====
:{{See also|Uranium One bribery scandal}}
Obama and his administration had a weak stance on Russia.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (July 22, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/07/22/pollak-media-let-obama-alums-off-the-hook-on-russia/ Pollak: Media Let Obama Alums off the Hook on Russia]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 22, 2018.</ref> He and Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] tried to "reset" relations with Russia, and he mocked [[Mitt Romney]] for calling Russia the most dangerous geopolitical threat to the U.S. in a 2012 debate. According to Brett Bruen, the White House director of global engagement from 2013 to 2015, the Obama Administration ignored his warnings about Russia.<ref>Morton, Victor (March 26, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/26/brett-bruen-obama-official-says-nsc-slept-his-2014/ Obama official says NSC slept on his 2014 Russia warning]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved March 26, 2018.</ref> Obama criticized president of [[Russia]], [[Vladimir Putin]] for carrying out a referendum for the seizure of [[Crimea]] to Russia.<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-calls-rethinking-crimea-vote Obama calls for a 'rethinking' on Crimea vote]. [[Cybercast News Service]]</ref> After taking office in 2017, [[Donald Trump]] took several actions against Russia that Obama never went so far as to do.<ref>Berger, Judson (December 26, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/26/trump-administration-ends-2017-confronting-russia-after-year-collusion-accusations.html Trump administration ends 2017 confronting Russia after year of collusion accusations]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2017.</ref>

'''Cuba'''

During his presidency, Obama instituted a major détente with the oppressive Communist dictatorship of [[Cuba]], despite its failed leftist governance and human rights violations.<ref>[https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-cuban-detente-1418862551 Obama’s Cuban Detente]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. December 17, 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref><ref>Spetalnick, Matt; Gardner, Timothy (December 13, 2016). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba-whitehouse-idUSKBN1422U6 Obama to press Trump to preserve Cuba detente: White House]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref> In August 2015, the U.S. and Cuba reopened each other's embassies.<ref>Frumin, Aliyah (July 1, 2015). [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-announces-historic-deal-cuba Obama announces historic deal with Cuba]. ''MSNBC''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/14/kerry-in-havana-for-reopening-us-embassy-tough-negotiations-ahead.html Kerry marks opening of US Embassy in Havana, critics rip 'diplomacy for show']. ''Fox News''. August 14, 2015. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref> In September 2016, Obama nominated the first U.S. Ambassador to Cuba in 55 years.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/obama-nominates-first-us-ambassador-to-cuba-in-more-than-45-years.html Obama nominates first US ambassador to Cuba in more than 55 years]. ''Fox News''. September 27, 2016. Retrieved January 15, 2016.</ref> Obama did everything in his power to normalize relations with the failed dictatorship, but the [[United States embargo against Cuba|U.S. embargo against Cuba]] remained in place due to opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress.<ref>Spetalnick, Matt; Marsh, Sarah (October 14, 2016). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-usa-idUSKBN12E1H3 Obama eases restrictions on Cuba, lifts limits on rum and cigars]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref> No one knows the extent of underground bunkers of Soviet-era weapons consisting of [[AK-47]]s and [[MANPAD]]S stockpiled between 1959–1986 when the collective stated foreign policy aims of Cuba and the Soviet Union were armed revolution and violent overthrow of the United States government and the capitalist system. The United States remains unprepared for trade talks and lifting travel restrictions on tourists.

Despite Obama's support for mass immigration and amnesty for those who immigrated illegally, he ended the "wet foot, dry foot" policy that allowed Cuban refugees to legally stay in the U.S.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/12/obama-reportedly-to-scrap-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy-for-cuban-refugees.html Obama announces end to 'wet foot, dry foot' policy for Cuban refugees]. ''Fox News''. January 12, 2017. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref>

Liberal mainstream media regarded Obama's private meetings with the murderous thugs who run Cuba as a breakthrough in relations.

'''Guantanamo Bay'''
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self-imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

Obama ultimately failed to close Guantanamo Bay, although he continually attempted to reduce the number of detained terrorists held at the base, even in the last days of his presidency.<ref>Saxena, V. (January 6, 2017). [http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-to-release-18-hardened-gitmo-terrorists-before-leaving-office/ Obama To Release 18 Hardened Gitmo Terrorists Before Leaving Office]. ''Western Journalism''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref><ref>Ryan, Missy; Tate, Julie (December 28, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-final-detainee-transfer-obamas-guantanamo-policy-takes-its-last-breath/2016/12/28/dfdf8cb2-cd0f-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.62bebcb1f672 With final detainee transfer, Obama’s Guantanamo policy takes its last breath]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref>

====Anti-Israel policies====
Obama has had very poor relations with the conservative [[Israel]]i Prime Minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]], and he disregarded U.S. commitments to the country.<ref>Klein, Aaron (May 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/05/09/klein-obama-accuses-trump-flouting-agreements-ex-prez-just-betraying-israel/ Klein: Obama Accuses Trump Of ‘Flouting’ Agreements, But Ex-Prez Did Just That By Betraying Israel]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 9, 2018.</ref> During the very tight and closely-watched 2015 elections, the Obama Administration attempted to influence the election—in order to elect a leftist government in the nation and defeat Netanyahu—by financing a liberal Israeli political organization.<ref>Klein, Aaron (July 13, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/07/13/israeli-lawmakers-fume-obama-administration-intervention-defeat-netanyahu/ Israeli Lawmakers Fume Over Obama Administration ‘Intervention’ to Defeat Netanyahu]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> Netanyahu decisively won the election, despite opposition from left-wing world leaders such as Obama.<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-claims-victory-as-vote-count-shows-likud-further-ahead/ Netanyahu scores crushing victory in Israeli elections]. ''The Times of Israel''. March 18, 2015. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

On December 23, 2016, Obama broke over 35 years of American policy by abstaining from a UN vote and allowing a blatantly anti-Israel resolution to pass, showing his true anti-Israel stance.<ref name="StrikeAgain"/><ref name="FedUpDrastic"/> On December 28, 2016, just a few weeks before the [[Trump Administration]] was to take office and a few days after the anti-[[Israel]] resolution was adopted, Kerry gave a major 72-minute<ref>Hanchett, Ian (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/28/nbcs-neely-kerry-speech-firing-a-flare-across-israel-he-wanted-to-give-it-for-some-time-but-wh-blocked-it/ NBC’s Neely: Kerry Speech ‘Firing a Flare’ ‘Across Israel’ He Wanted To Give It ‘For Some Time’ But WH Blocked It]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> speech viciously attacking Israel and paying worthless lip-service to American "support" for the nation.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/28/kerry-on-israel-peace-un-resolution/ Kerry Attacks Israeli Government, Defends UN Resolution]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> Israeli Prime Minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] responded harshly but appropriately to the Administration's blatant betrayal.<ref>Key, Pam (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/28/netanyahu-i-must-express-my-deep-disappointment-with-john-kerry-israelis-do-not-need-to-be-lectured/ Netanyahu: ‘I Must Express My Deep Disappointment’ With Kerry — ‘Israelis Do Not Need To Be Lectured’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

Despite these actions, the U.S. House passed a motion on January 5, 2017, condemning Obama's allowing of the UN resolution.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/house-overwhelmingly-votes-to-condemn-un-resolution-on-israel-settlements.html House overwhelmingly votes to condemn UN resolution on Israel settlements]. ''Fox News''. January 5, 2017. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Cortellessa, Eric (January 6, 2017). [https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-house-passes-repudiation-of-un-security-council-resolution-on-israel/ US House passes motion repudiating UN resolution on Israel]. ''The Times of Israel''. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref> Additionally, Republican President-elect [[Donald Trump]] voiced strong support for Israel during this time.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (December 23, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/23/trump-hints-defunding-un-anti-israel-vote/ Trump on UN Anti-Israel Vote: ‘Things Will Be Different After Jan. 20’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Swoyer, Alex (December 29, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/29/trump-im-very-very-strong-on-israel/ Trump: ‘I’m Very, Very Strong on Israel’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref>

Soon before leaving office, Obama bypassed Congress and gave the [[State of Palestine]] $221 million.<ref name="221MLastHours">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/us-quietly-sent-221m-to-palestinians-in-obamas-last-hours.html US quietly sent $221M to Palestinians in Obama's last hours]. ''Fox News''. January 24, 2017. Retrieved January 24, 2017.</ref>

====Pro-Iranian policies====
In contrast to his anti-Israel policies, Obama took a friendly stance toward Iran, helping negotiate the [[Iran nuclear deal]] with the country, something Obama's successor, President Trump, chose to reverse. The Obama Administration actively worked to give Iran access to American banks.<ref>Multiple references:
*Taylor, Guy (June 6, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/6/obama-hid-efforts-to-aid-irans-windfall/ Obama hid efforts to aid Iran's windfall]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*[https://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/politics/report-obama-administration-lied-about-iran-deal Report: Obama administration lied about Iran deal]. ''OneNewsNow'' (from the ''Associated Press''). June 6, 2018. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
*Edson, Rich (June 6, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/06/obama-administration-allegedly-gave-iran-access-to-us-financial-system.html Obama administration allegedly gave Iran access to US financial system]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 8, 2018.</ref> According to a high-ranking Iranian official in 2018, the Obama Administration granted U.S. citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during the nuclear deal negotiations, including the friends and family of Iranian government leaders.<ref>Irvine, Chris (July 2, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/02/obama-administration-granted-citizenship-to-2500-iranians-during-nuclear-deal-iran-official.html Obama administration granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during nuclear deal: Iran official]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved July 2, 2018.</ref>

An Iranian militia leader who led an attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq in 2019 had been invited to the White House by the Obama Administration in 2011.<ref>Multiple references:
*Nolan, Lucas (December 31, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/12/31/iranian-militia-leader-who-led-raid-u-s-embassy-baghdad-previously-visited-obama-white-house/ Iranian Militia Leader Leading Iraq U.S. Embassy Raid Listed as Obama White House Guest]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
*Singman, Brooke (January 2, 2020). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iraqi-official-spotted-outside-embassy-attack-visited-obama-white-house-in-2011 Iraqi official spotted outside embassy attack visited Obama White House in 2011]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
*Dibble, Madison (January 2, 2020). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-gave-white-house-welcome-to-iran-backed-leader-of-us-embassy-attack-in-baghdad Obama gave White House welcome to Iran-backed leader of US Embassy attack in Baghdad]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
*Boyer, Dave (January 2, 2020). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/2/hadi-al-amiri-leader-us-embassy-siege-iraq-was-gue/ Leader of U.S. Embassy siege in Iraq was guest of Obama at White House]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
*Boyer, Dave (January 3, 2020). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/3/chief-of-iran-backed-embassy-siege-met-with-obama-/ Chief of Iran-backed embassy siege met with Obama, Biden]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved January 3, 2020.</ref>

====Opposition to U.S. sovereignty====
{{See also|War on Sovereignty}}
Preferring international cooperation and equality to American [[sovereignty]] and independence (despite the U.S.'s obviously superior geopolitical position), Obama intentionally reduced American power and strength during his presidency. One of his actions as president was to give up the nation's control of [[Domain name|internet domain name system]] and transfer control over to an international organization in 2016.<ref>Solomon, Howard (October 3, 2016). [https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/new-era-in-internet-governance-starts-as-us-cedes-control-of-domain-name-system/386903 New era in Internet governance starts as US cedes control of domain name system]. ''IT World Canada''. Retrieved October 14, 2016.</ref><ref>Lieberman, Eric (September 24, 2016). [https://dailycaller.com/2016/09/24/obama-admin-wants-to-surrender-us-control-over-internet-to-global-bureaucracy/ Obama Admin Wants To Surrender US Control Over Internet To Global Bureaucracy]. ''The Daily Caller''. Retrieved October 14, 2016.</ref>

Obama also entered the U.S. into the [[Paris climate agreement]] and attempted to have it join the [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]], which was under negotiation. Both of these agreements would have reduced American sovereignty and [[self-governance]].

Obama also endorsed the United Nations 2030 Agenda in 2015, which called for "a 'new universal agenda' for all of humanity" and served as a major step toward a [[one-world government]].<ref>Hohmann, Leo (September 30, 2015). [https://www.wnd.com/2015/09/obama-puts-u-s-on-fast-track-to-world-government/ Obama puts U.S. on 'fast track' to world government]. ''WND''. Retrieved December 26, 2017.</ref>

===Congressional relations===
Obama has maintained tense relations with Congress throughout his term as President. Each of his budgets was voted down, and many of his judicial appointments have not come to a vote. When Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] died on February 13, 2016, Obama made a point of addressing the nation to say that he would nominate a replacement, which drew criticism and rebuke from Republican Senators and Presidential candidates. Obama executive action in areas such as immigration policy drew extensive criticism as infringing upon Congressional legislative powers.

===Scandals===
Obama turned the [[Justice Department]] into a cesspool of corruption.<ref>[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nymagazin.com%2Fen_US%2Fobamagate-si-reforma-fbi-ului-tiberiu-dianu%2F]</ref>

Obama was complicit in the whitewash of Hillary Clinton's email investigation. In fact, Obama himself crafted the language of "careless," reducing the charge of gross negligence punishable by 10 years in prison down to nothing. Obama himself had much to hide; he knew of Hillary's illegal email server. Obama communicated with Hillary on her illegal server at least 30 times, including from the territory of a "hostile foreign power," presumably Russia, where their communication was most certainly hacked.

When the disgraced Obama appointee as FBI director whitewashed the incident by saying Hillary communicated with "a senior government official," it was Obama himself and his complicity in the reckless handling of classified information that Comey was covering up, not just Hillary. Over the course of his presidency, Obama cost taxpayers $35 million to cover his Christmas vacations.<ref>Harper, Jennifer (December 23, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/23/inside-the-beltway-aloha-the-35-million-obama-chri/ Memories of Christmas past: The $35 million Obama travel bill]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 24, 2018.</ref> FBI deputy director [[Andrew McCabe]]'s special counsel [[Lisa Page]] 's sworn congressional testimony confirms that the FBI was acting on orders from the Obama Justice Department to clear Hillary Clinton of [[felon]]ious behavior and violations of the Espionage Act so that she could be nominated as the DNC 2016 presidential candidate.<ref>[https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/03/13/lisa-page-obama-doj-ordered-fbi-not-to-charge-hillary-clinton-no-collusion/ Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Said Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not To Charge Hillary Clinton], [[CBS]], March 13, 2019.</ref>

====Fast and Furious====
[[File:Eric Holder.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Eric Holder]] is the First Attorney General in US history held in [[criminal]] [[Contempt of Congress]]. He resigned in light of the Fast & Furious revelations<ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/fast_and_furious_in_a_rotten_nutshell.html#ixzz27iRBCN28 Fast and Furious in a Rotten Nutshell], Ronald Kolb, ''[[American Thinker]]'', October 7, 2011,</ref> and other scandals.]]
:''Main article:'' '''[[Operation Fast and Furious]]'''
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Mexican drug related gun murders skyrocket during Obama's Fast and Furious campaign<ref>https://archive.is/RyT8w</ref>
|-
| 2006 || 62
|-
| 2007 || 2,837
|-
| 2008 || 6,844
|-
| 2009 || 11,753
|-
| 2010 || 19,546
|-
| 2011 || 24,068
|-
| 2012 || 18,061 (by October 31, 2012)
|-
| 2013 || 23,640 killed in 2013 (through to March 2014)
|}
Before Obama's Fast and Furious operation was exposed, the number of dead victims in drug cartel violence has been estimated as high as 160,000 deaths.

The ''Washington Post'' reported that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers had been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

====IRS scandal====
:{{Main article|IRS scandal}}

====Aid to Benghazi rebels====
A March 29, 2011 article in the ''[[Washington Post]]'' included these paragraphs:
{{Cquote|"It’s almost a certitude that at least part” of the Libyan opposition includes members of al-Qaeda, said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama. Riedel said that anti-Gaddafi elements in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi have had “very close associations with al-Qaeda” dating back years....I would hope that we now have a good sense of the opposition in Libya and can say that this is 2 percent, not 20 percent,” Riedel said. “If we don’t, then we are running the risk of helping to bring to power a regime that could be very dangerous.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-opposition-includes-a-small-number-of-al-qaeda-fighters-us-officials-say/2011/03/29/AFRlXWyB_story.html Libyan opposition includes a small number of al-Qaeda fighters, U.S. officials say], Washington Post</ref>}}
[[File:Mass beheading of Christians in Libya.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Gadaffi was an ally of the US against the jihadis until Obama armed the jihadis to overthrow Gadaffi. One of their first acts was the mass beheading of Christians.]]
This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss Washington in Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels], The New York Times</ref> It is now known sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels], The New York Times</ref> at the urging of Hillary Clinton<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=3&hp& Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton], The New York Times</ref> and over the objections of his National Security Council, Obama signed a Presidential Finding authorizing support for the rebel jihadis.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330 Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels], [[Reuters]]</ref>

By October 2011, [[Libyan rebel fighting group]]s with support from [[NATO]] overtook the capital and toppled the government. Gaddafi was captured and brutally and sadistically murdered.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPzeLLL9V-c Leading from behind - a critique of Obama foreign policy]</ref> The jihadis were immediately recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the new legitimate government. Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council, announced [[Sharia]] will be the source for all legislation and all laws conflicting with Sharia are null and void.<ref name="Sharia">[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse] - [[Daily Telegraph]]</ref> Abdel Rahim al-Kib, the country's interim prime minister, echoed Jalil's words days later.<ref>[http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207953.html New Libyan PM backs Islamic sharia law]</ref> The al Qaeda flag was flown above the Benghazi courthouse, and reports surfaced that the Libyan jihadis had imposed Sharia law in some parts of the country even earlier.<ref name="Sharia" /> By February 17, 2013, four foreign nationals were arrested for distributing Christian literature, a charge that could carry the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/17/libya-arrests-suspected-foreign-missionaries Libya arrests foreign 'missionaries' Four foreign nationals accused of distributing Christian literature] a charge that could carry the death penalty, Chris Stephen [[The Guardian]], Sunday 17 February 2013.</ref>

In 2014, the Obama Administration gave a $200,000 grant to a Sudanese group with ties to [[Al Qaeda]].<ref>Pappas, Alex (July 27, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/27/obama-administration-approved-200g-grant-to-group-with-al-qaeda-ties.html Obama administration approved $200G grant to group with Al Qaeda ties]. 'Fox News''. Retrieved July 27, 2018.</ref><ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (July 28, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/29656-obama-administration-funded-al-qaida-front Obama Administration Funded al-Qaida Front]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 28, 2018.</ref>

====Benghazi massacre====
[[File:Benghazi attack.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Amb. Stevens was specifically in Benghazi to oversee and facilitate transfer of captured weapons from the Gadaffi regime to groups in Syria which ultimately became the [[Islamic State]]. Few people had knowledge of this program beyond Stevens, Clinton, and Obama. Once the mission was completed, Stevens was expendable.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/REAL-Benghazi-Story-White-Hillary/dp/1531817130</ref>]]
:{{main|Benghazi Attack}}
With several U.S. embassies besieged on the anniversary of the [[September 11 attacks]], White House Press Secretary [[Jay Carney]] declared there was no reason to believe the attack on the sovereign territory of the United States consulate in Benghazi, less than two months before the [[2012 Presidential election]] which killed Americans, was a terrorist attack.
{{Cquote|The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive.}}
This became the official White House line. Between laughs with [[Jon Stewart]] on [[Comedy Central]], Obama said the death of Americans was "not optimal".<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/18/Obama-Benghazi-murders-not-optimal Interview with Jon Stewart of the ''Daily Show''], Breitbart.com</ref> When pressed by reporters, who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Press Secretary Carney argued “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”

Leading suspected jihadis in the murders and terrorist attack were the local Benghazi branch of Ansar al-Shariah, known to have ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121023114113/http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/10/19/when-an-obama-adviser-called-benghazi-an-al-qaeda-hotbed/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway When an Obama adviser called Benghazi an al-Qaeda hotbed]</ref> A commander of the terrorist group boasted jovially about the attack over drinks with reporters for the ''New York Times'' in Benghazi.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world Election-Year Stakes Overshadow Nuances of Libya Investigation], The New York Times</ref><ref>[https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/frappe-libya-attack/ Frappe-Sipping Libyan Militant Laughs at U.S. Manhunt for Benghazi Killers], [[Wired (magazine)]]</ref>

====Funding the Islamic State====
Two more Americans were killed, along with 35 others, after being taken hostage by rebel jihadists in Mali shortly after the Libyan upheaval.<ref>[http://world.time.com/2013/01/21/algeria-37-foreigner-hostages-killed-in-attack/ Algeria: 37 Foreigner Hostages Killed in Attack], Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2013. ''[[Time Magazine]]''.</ref>

Hillary Clinton testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the wake of the Benghazi murders under her stewardship, that weapons and fighters equipped by the Obama administration made their way to [[Mali]] and [[Algeria]]:
{{cquote|There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya. There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-militants-used-weapons-libya-algeria-attack-154222664.html Clinton says militants used weapons from Libya in Algeria attack] [[Reuters]], Jan 23, 2013.</ref>}}

====1MDB scandal====
After the 2012 election, Obama's chief fundraiser continued raising money for Democratic candidates. [[Frank White, Jr.]] and [[Pras Michel]] formed a joint venture with [[1Malaysian Development Berhad]] (1MDB), wholly owned by the Malaysian government. The venture supposedly was to invest in green technology and solar panels, but corrupt officials of 1MDB were more interested in buying influence with the [[Obama administration]] and the [[Democratic party]],<ref>[https://www.wsj.com/articles/suspect-malaysian-fund-tied-to-lobbying-of-white-house-1476403764 Malaysian Fund 1MDB Linked to White House Visit], By Bradley Hope and Colleen McCain Nelson, ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Oct. 13, 2016.</ref> and White and Pras likewise were not interested in providing a renewable source of electricity or solving the problems of [[poverty]] for Malaysia's 30 million people.

Malaysians have a median household income of $4500, so the theft of $4.5 Billion by [[globalism|globalists]] pushing green technology and Democrats looking for foreign money to finance their campaigns cause they can't sell their ideas at home, had a devastating impact on the Malaysian people, economy, and political culture.

White and Pras got two anonymous investors to lend a half of a Trillion dollars for a little over a two-year period. They formed a joint partnership agreement with 1MDB to build a green technology solar plant. White and Pras owned 49%, 1MDB controlled 51%. White was supposed to have provided financial advice. His advice turned out to be for 1MBD to buy out his 49% for $69 million six months after the agreement was signed, without White's entities investing any of the half Trillion he borrowed.<ref>"The crucial evidence from the records available (illustrated above) shows that the Private Equity fund Yurus, set up by White, registered the entire US$69 million it received from 1MDB as additional profit, implying it had not invested any of its original US$505 million fund in the venture." [https://medium.com/@sarawakreport/1mdb-sleaze-casts-shadow-over-us-democrats-on-eve-of-obama-visit-investigation-1MDB Sleaze Casts Shadow Over US Democrats On Eve Of Obama Visit], ''Sarawak Report'', 15 November 2015.</ref> Portions of the $69 million were then donated to Democrat Senate, Congressional, and Gubernatorial candidates. The $69 million Democrats stole from the people of Malaysia during the Obama presidency is only a fraction of the corrupt deals 1MDB did all over the planet. Much of the $4.5 Billion embezzled was laundered through U.S. banks, and has become the largest investigation ever under the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Act.<ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-delivers-remarks-press-conference-announcing-significant</ref>

====Spygate====
[[File:170509-andrew-mccabe-ac-1043p c043e7050b32e4ad26bd45b92eb651eb.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg|right|275px|thumb|McCabe (left) with co-conspirator Attn. Gen. [[Loretta Lynch]] (right). McCabe took $700,000 from a Clinton campaign operative to fix the email investigation and save Hillary's nomination. Lynch colluded with Bill Clinton at the Phoenix tarmac meeting to whitewash Hillary's email investigation and meddle in 2016 election.]]
:{{See also|Obamagate timeline|FBI scandal|FISA abuse|Crossfire Hurricane|Biden-Ukraine scandal}}
In the Obama-era political surveillance programs, the lines between the CIA and FBI were blurred. They wworked together through contractors.<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/25/president-obamas-2016-political-surveillance-coverup-had-two-parallel-tracks/</ref> The Obama administration had been conducting illegal surveillance on American citizens since 2012, shortly after the IRS scandal was exposed. On March 9, 2016, the [[NSA]] FISA compliance officer discovered the illegal collusion between the FBI and CIA to spy on American citizens. Between March and July 2016, the CIA used foreign intelligence allies in [[Italy]], the [[U.K.]] and [[Australia]] to create an illusion of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. This operation was based on earlier more innocuous contacts from various countries, weaponized and redeployed in what everyone calls “spygate”. This track successfully culminated with the start of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane.<ref>[https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/03/08/doj-political-surveillance-from-the-irs-in-2011-to-the-fisa-court-in-2016/ DOJ Political Surveillance – From the IRS in 2011 to the FISA Court in 2016], Posted on March 8, 2020 by sundance. theconservativetreehouse.com </ref>

On July 31, 2016 FBI deputy head of the [[counterintelligence]] division [[Peter Strzok]] began an investigation into [[Donald Trump]]. Two days later Strzok had this exchange with [[Lisa Page]], an attorney in FBI deputy director [[Andy McCabe]]'s office: {{Quotebox|'''Lisa Page – He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?! Strzok - No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.'''
}}
On September 2, 2016, Lisa Page wrote about preparing talking points for Dir. [[Jimmy Comey]] because “[[POTUS|potus]] [Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”<ref>https://theblacksphere.net/2018/02/fbi-text-message-potus-wants-know-everything/</ref> The text raised questions about the extent of Obama's personal involvement in on ongoing the FBI investigation.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-texts-obama-wants-know-everything-we-re-doing-n845531</ref>

[[Susan Rice]] sent an email to herself about a secret [[Oval Office]] meeting where the ''[[Clinton-Steele dossier]]'' was discussed;<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html</ref><ref>https://apnews.com/152579d488a740b2a8d39fbe2f34506d</ref><ref>https://apnews.com/a82309544e9e465fa2ad4f83e5a48540</ref> (the email was written and sent to herself 15 minutes after Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20):<ref>https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-uncover-unusual-email-sent-susan-rice-herself-president-trump-s</ref> {{Quotebox|"On January 5, following a briefing by [[IC]] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, [[President Obama]] had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director [[Jim Comey]] and Deputy Attorney General [[Sally Yates]] in the Oval Office. [[Vice President Biden]] and I were also present. President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book". The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book. From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. [Redacted section] The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would."<ref>https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-08%20CEG%20LG%20to%20Rice%20(Russia%20Investigation%20Email).pdf</ref>}}[[File:112 2016 b4-napo-comey-hoove8201 c0-389-1420-1216 s885x516 (1).jpg|right|300px|thumb|[[Jimmy the Weasel]] beside [[J. Edgar Hoover]]. Under Obama the FBI returned to the use of sexual innuendo and domestic spying on political opponents.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/19/comey-trump-cnn-news-hook/</ref>]]At the conclusion of the briefing, Obama asked Sally Yates and James Comey to remain. Together with Susan Rice, is where the “by the book” CYA comment comes into play. The 90-day surveillance period under the FISA warrant had just a bit over two weeks left to run — it was set to expire just as Trump was to take office. (Reporting suggests that there may also have been a [[FISA]] warrant on [[Paul Manafort]] around this time.) The Obama administration was confronting a deadline if the FISA warrant was to be renewed while Obama was still in power. The officials in the meeting needed to figure out how the investigation could continue despite the fact that its central focus, Trump, was about to be sworn in as president. Rice's “by the book” bunkum is transparent: Obama officials claimed to adhere to a book that forbade consultations between political leaders and investigators. But here they were consulting. So Rice tried to cover their tracks in her email: She revises history such that the consultation morphs into a mere friendly reminder that Obama wanted everything done by the book.<ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/susan-rice-email-president-obama-russia-investigation/</ref>

The [[Russia collusion hoax]] was predicated on the unverified premise that [[Wikileaks]] was a front for [[KGB]] activity. Nonetheless, Obama commuted the sentence of [[Chelsea Manning]] who passed [[national security]] secrets to WikiLeaks two days before Obama left office.

On March 4, 2017, after becoming President, Trump tweeted:
<blockquote>How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!<ref>https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump</ref></blockquote>
and
<blockquote>Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!</blockquote>

Members of the mainstream media called this wiretapping claim an "astonishing and reckless accusation".<ref name=wiretap>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-experiment-may-come-to-an-early-tipping-point/2017/03/05/87d38b3a-0055-11e7-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.edb071c61986|title=The Trump Experiment may come to an early tipping point|first=EJ|last=Dionne Jr.|work=Washington Post|date=March 5, 2017|accessdate=March 5, 2017}}</ref> It was later all found to be true and accurate. Nixon resigned over attempting to spy on the opposition party at the [[Watergate]] hotel; Obama got away with it on scale no one could ever imagine.

====Final Mueller report====
According to ''[[USA Today]]'', "[[Obama]] blew it big time" in regards to Russian efforts to meddle in the [[2016 presidential election]]. Mueller's final report flatly states that [[Russia]] began interfering in American democracy in 2014.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/18/mueller-report-collusion-trump-russian-election-interference-democrats-takeaways-column/3505946002/</ref> Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into an attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The [[Obama administration]] knew this and did nothing. [[National Security Advisor]] [[Susan Rice]] told her staff to "stand down" and "knock it off" against the Russians.<ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/stand-obama-team-blew-response-russian-meddling-100024634.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw</ref><ref>https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/why-the-hell-are-we-standing-down/</ref> Obama was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted [[Vladimir Putin]] in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama's estimation, upset that negotiation.<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html?no-st=1555716010</ref>

According to DCWhispers {{quotebox|Obama had his hands all over this attempted [[coup]] of a duly elected [[President of the United States]]. The reasons for that are likely many, but perhaps a foundational reason is this—Barack Obama has never considered himself to be one required to follow U.S. law. He has always been inclined to see himself as a person of the world, not of a single nation and a single nation’s laws. Some have argued he is openly defiant of said laws, thinking them a byproduct of a deeply flawed America of which he has little if any loyalty toward. Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda is the antithesis of Obama’s “America Bad” world view and he could not abide seeing his legacy of relegating the United States to secondary world status overtaken by an outsider who was not beholden to the rules of the elite political class in D.C.

And so, Mr. Obama once again weaponized the federal government in an attempt to destroy a political opponent. The fact this was a shocking violation of the law meant little because all of America’s laws mean so little to the now former president.<ref>http://dcwhispers.com/report-dirty-dealings-of-dirt-devils-who-concocted-trump-russia-probe/#SHCy4bth9xbL6Ifx.99</ref>}}

===Pardons and commutations===
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, President Obama issued 1,928 grants of clemency, with 1,716 being commutations, more than any other U.S. president.<ref>Bedard, Paul (September 5, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-broke-the-record-for-commuting-jail-sentences-1716/article/2633400 Obama broke the record for commuting jail sentences, 1,716]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 6, 2017.</ref> Obama pardoned [[Chelsea Manning]] who allegedly [[collude]]d with [[Julian Assange]] of [[Wikileaks]], who allegedly colluded with Russia to interfere in the [[2016 presidential election]]. Manning was pardoned four days before Obama left office as the Russia collusion investigation was getting under way.

===Controversies===
:''Main article: [[Barack Obama Controversies]]''
Several major controversies have dogged Obama throughout his political career and have received major media coverage and prominence.

'''Obamaisms'''

Obama's bizarre gaffes, or [[Obamaisms]], were frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Some examples are: spelling respect as R-S-P-E-C-T when he was attempting to sing that line from [[Aretha Franklin]]'s famous song, spelling Ohio as O-I-H-O, and saying that we built the Intercontinental Railroad instead of the Transcontinental Railroad, saying "How's it going, Sunshine" when he was in the city of Sunrise, Florida.<ref>Kurtzman, Daniel (March 6, 2014 or aft.) [https://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm "Obamaisms: Dumb quotes and gaffes by Barack Obama"]. About.com website/About entertainment/Political humor/Funny political jokes/Political gaffes.</ref> Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where, referring to infrastructure improvements, he said "[[You didn't build that]]." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, Justin (June 1, 2012). [https://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe "Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe"]. The Hill website/Policy/International.</ref> Gaffes are inevitable for people with a high profile, but several of Obama's were very revealing ("you didn't build that"), and they show how the [[mainstream media]] tends to emphasize the gaffes of conservatives as opposed to liberals.

'''Famous quotes'''
*"I continue to believe that [[Donald Trump]] will not be president." (stated when asked by a reporter a month prior to Election Day)<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4iZSW_76TE Democrats and Media Agreed: There Was No Way Donald Trump Could Be Elected], Video</ref>

===Election meddling===
By custom, President Obama stayed neutral during the primaries, even though his close friend and Vice President [[Creepy Uncle Joe]] [[Biden]] was seriously considering a Presidential campaign.

Once Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, Obama campaigned for her and also attended fundraisers. Obama publicly criticized the Republican candidate, [[Donald Trump]] who had previously spent years claiming that Obama was not born in the United States.

===Last days and transition===
:{{See also|Trump transition|FISA abuse}}
In a stunning repudiation of Obama's policies, Republican businessman [[Donald Trump]] was elected over Democrat [[Hillary Clinton]] – Obama considered it a personal insult.<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (May 3, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/03/obama-considered-trumps-election-personal-insult/ Report: Obama Considered Trump’s Election a Personal Insult]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 3, 2019.</ref><ref>Kafozoff, Kristian (May 3, 2019). [https://www.theepochtimes.com/obama-considered-trumps-2016-win-as-personal-insult-new-updates-from-book_2905270.html Obama Considered Trump’s 2016 Win As ‘Personal Insult’: New Updates From Book]. ''The Epoch Times''. Retrieved May 3, 2019.</ref> In a frantic attempt to leave some sort of legacy, Obama issued a very large amount of far-Left executive orders and regulations which revealed his true political views if any doubt remained.<ref name="ActionsSpree">Lucas, Fred (December 26, 2016). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/26/spree-obama-actions-revives-gop-concerns-over-midnight-regs-agenda.html?refresh=true Spree of Obama actions revives GOP concerns over ‘midnight’ regs, agenda]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref> These orders included blocking large areas of the [[Arctic Ocean|Arctic]] and [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]] oceans from oil and gas drilling, effectively barring the U.S. from real [[Energy Independence|energy independence]]; breaking the record of pardons and commutations in a single day for criminals (many of them were sentenced for drug-related crimes), showing his soft stance on crime and drugs; ending the defunct NSEERS program to register male immigrants from North Korea and [[Islam]]ic countries (the necessary, beneficial, and useful program was suspended by the Obama Administration in 2011<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/22/obama-ditches-registry-focused-on-immigrant-men-from-muslim-countries.html Obama ditches registry focused on immigrant men from Muslim countries]. ''Fox News''. December 22, 2016. Retrieved March 9, 2017.</ref>); attempting to transfer even more terrorists out of [[Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp|Guantanamo Bay]]; allowing an anti-[[Israel]] resolution pass in the [[United Nations]]; enacting a record amount of unnecessary, useless, and job-killing regulations; and even more.<ref name="ActionsSpree"/> Obama added 120,000 illegal immigrants to the DACA program in the last three months of his presidency.<ref>Binder, John (May 16, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/16/obama-stamped-120k-dreamers-trump-takeover/ Obama Stamped 120K DREAMers Before Trump Takeover]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> Obama made these actions knowing that Trump, who had almost completely opposite political views on these issues, was going to enter the [[White House]] in such short a time.

Although all of Obama's actions were worrisome, his actions in regards to Israel were particularly noteworthy. He broke over 35 years of American policy by abstaining from a UN vote and allowing a blatantly anti-Israel resolution to pass, showing his true stance concerning Israel.<ref name="StrikeAgain">[https://worldisraelnews.com/israel-fears-obama-will-strike/ Israel fears Obama will strike again]. ''World Israel News''. December 26, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref><ref name="FedUpDrastic">Berkowitz, Adam Eliyahu (December 26, 2016). [https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/80855/fed-up-with-obamas-trickery-netanyahu-takes-drastic-actions/#VbVlRMtkx4zLRc3f.97 Fed Up With United States Trickery, Netanyahu Takes Drastic Actions]. ''Breaking Israel News''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref> Soon before leaving office, Obama bypassed Congress and gave the [[State of Palestine]] $221 million.<ref name="221MLastHours"/>

Obama continued to believe that he could have successfully "won" a third term as president had he been able to run.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/26/obama-could-have-won-third-term.html?refresh=true Obama: I could have won third term]. ''Fox News''. December 26, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref> Regardless of the factuality of that claim, Democrats lost 1,042 seats—including U.S. House, Senate, state governorship, and state legislative seats—during his eight years in office.<ref name="1,000Seats">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.html Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama]. ''Fox News''. December 27, 2016. Retrieved December 27, 2016.</ref> Obama also believed that "the Democratic Party has stayed pretty grounded in fact and reality" despite its negative policies that suggest otherwise.<ref>Lawler, David (December 26, 2016). [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/barack-obama-says-democrats-will-not-disintegrate-like-labour/ Barack Obama says Democrats will not 'disintegrate' like Labour under Jeremy Corbyn]. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref>

Obama made Trump's transition much harder and rockier than it could have been by his leftist executive orders, decisions, and comments during the transition period.<ref>Swoyer, Alex (December 28, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/28/donald-trump-responds-to-president-obamas-many-inflammatory-statements/ Donald Trump Responds to President Obama’s ‘Many Inflammatory’ Statements]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref><ref>Scott, Eugine (December 28, 2016). [https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/politics/trump-obama-statements-not-smooth-transition/ Trump: 'NOT' a smooth transition after Obama 'roadblocks']. ''CNN''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

Obama received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service from [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Ash Carter]], an Obama appointee in the same administration.<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (January 4, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/04/president-obama-awards-himself-distinguished-public-service-medal/ President Obama Awards Himself Distinguished Public Service Medal]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 7, 2017.</ref> Although the award was created in 1947, the only other presidents to have received the medal (all during their tenure) are [[Bill Clinton]], a left-wing Democrat, and [[George W. Bush]], who holds [[RINO]] positions on certain issues.

In an interview, Obama claimed that "we are probably the first administration in modern history that hasn't had a major scandal in the White House,"<ref>[https://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/13/president-obama-60-minutes-no-white-house-scandals-during-my-administration Obama: I'm the 1st Modern President Without a Major Scandal]. ''Fox News Insider''. January 13, 2017. Retrieved January 16 2017.</ref> and Obama's Chief of Staff [[Denis McDonough]] claimed likewise,<ref>Shelbourne, Mallory (January 15, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/314396-obama-chief-of-staff-most-proud-we-are-scandal-free Chief of staff: Obama administration 'historically free of scandal']. ''The Hill''. Retrieved January 16, 2017.</ref> despite the strong and massive evidence to the contrary.<ref>Dickens, Geoffrey (January 16, 2017). [https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2017/01/16/ The Seven Most Undercovered Obama Scandals]. ''[[NewsBusters]]''. Retrieved January 16, 2017.</ref><ref>Hemingway, Mark (January 9, 2017). [https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-obama-era-had-scandals-aplenty/article/2006197 The Obama Era Had Scandals Aplenty]. ''[[Weekly Standard]]''. Retrieved January 16, 2017.</ref>

====Massive increase in regulations in 2016====
In addition to his other actions in 2016, Obama massively increased the number of federal regulations during his last days in office.<ref>Harper, Jennifer (May 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/30/inside-the-beltway-obamas-unprecedented-surge-of-r/ Inside the Beltway: Obama’s unprecedented ‘surge’ of regulations]. '' The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 30, 2017.</ref><ref>Lawler, Joseph (May 31, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-rules-surged-in-obamas-last-year-to-3853-most-pages-in-federal-register-ever/article/2624503 New rules surged in Obama's last year to 3,853, most pages in Federal Register ever]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved May 31, 2017.</ref> More regulations were finalized in every year since 2005, and they cost the economy $2 trillion.<ref>Sherfinski, David (May 31, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/31/obamas-regulations-in-2016-to-drain-economy-by-2-t/ Obama’s regulations in 2016 to drain economy by $2 trillion]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 31, 2017.</ref>

==Post-presidency==
:{{See also|2020 Democrats' attacks on Barack Hussein Obama}}
Obama made an ungraceful departure from office claiming on October 18, 2016, Donald Trump's complaints of lies spread about Trump were corrosive to American democracy and an invented conspiracy theory.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/obama-trumps-rigged-election-claim-whining-before-the-games-even-over/</ref> Less than two months later after Trump had won, Obama claimed he himself had been derelict in his duty and had fallen asleep at the switch allowing Russian hackers to steal the election for Donald Trump.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/russia-hack-election-trump-obama.html</ref>

Despite Obama's opposition to Trump's plan to build a wall along the U.S.–[[Mexico]] border in order to secure it, it was reported in early 2017 that he was building a wall around his new mansion, obviously to keep unwanted people out.<ref>[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-building-a-wall-around-his-new-dc-house/article/2611130 Obama building a wall around his new DC house]. ''Washington Examiner''. January 6, 2017. Retrieved January 7, 2017.</ref>

Obama acquired a lavish celebrity lifestyle after ending his presidency.<ref>Varney, James (June 17, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/17/obama-endorsement-coveted-ex-president-writes-own-/ Hobnobbing Obama raking in the cash post-presidency -- while still dabbling in politics]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 19, 2019.</ref> He spent much of his time vacationing in exclusive and elite locations around the world.<ref>Bennett, Kate (March 17, 2017). [https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/where-in-the-world-is-barack-obama/ Barack Obama is probably lying on a beach in a deserted paradise right now]. ''CNN''. Retrieved March 18, 2017.</ref> He spent much time with left-wing celebrities, such as spending [[Good Friday]] 2017 on a $300 million yacht with celebrities such as [[Bruce Springsteen]], [[Tom Hanks]], and [[Oprah Winfrey]],<ref>Hudson, Jerome (April 17, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/04/17/barack-michelle-obama-join-oprah-springsteen-hanks-on-david-geffens-yacht/ Good Friday: Obamas Join Winfrey, Springsteen, Hanks on David Geffen’s Yacht]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 27, 2017.</ref> and in Italy in 2019 with [[George Clooney]].<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (June 25, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/06/25/jet-setting-obamas-seen-hobnobbing-with-the-clooneys-on-ritzy-lake-como/ Jet Setting Obamas Seen Hobnobbing with the Clooneys on Ritzy Lake Como]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 25, 2019.</ref> In addition, Obama accepted a $400,000 speech backed by Wall Street,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/27/obama-spokesman-defends-reported-400000-wall-street-backed-speech.html Obama spokesman defends reported $400,000 Wall Street-backed speech]. ''Fox News''. April 27, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2017.</ref> something that stunned even many liberals.<ref>Wallace, Christopher (April 27, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/27/obamas-400g-wall-street-speech-leaves-liberal-base-stunned.html Obama's $400G Wall Street speech leaves liberal base stunned]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 27, 2017.</ref> Despite the criticism over the speech, Obama gave another $400,000 speech shortly afterward.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/28/obama-reportedly-pulls-in-another-400g-for-speech.html Obama reportedly pulls in another $400G for speech]. ''Fox News''. April 28, 2017. Retrieved April 28, 2017.</ref> [[Bernie Sanders]] described Obama's speaking fees as "unfortunate."<ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/28/unfortunate-bernie-sanders-criticizes-obama-for-accepting-400k-for-wall-street-speech/ ‘Unfortunate’: Bernie Sanders criticizes Obama for accepting $400K for Wall Street speech], [[The Blaze]]</ref> In May 2017, Obama traveled to Italy to give a speech on [[global warming|climate change]], but used pollution-heavy transportation to get to his destination.<ref>Zanotti, Emily (May 21, 2017). [https://heatst.com/politics/obama-speaks-on-global-warming-then-spews-co2-with-private-jet-13-car-motorcade/ Obama Speaks on Global Warming, Then Spews CO2 With Private Jet, 13-Car Motorcade]. ''Heat Street''. Retrieved May 22, 2017.</ref> On June 6, 2017, Obama gave a $400,000 speech to the Chamber of Commerce in [[Montreal]] in which one of the topics he spoke about was "warning against income inequality and the concentration of wealth."<ref>Starr, Penny (June 7, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/obama-warns-income-inequality-delivering-7700-minute-speech/ Obama Warns Against Income Inequality While Delivering $7,700-a-Minute Speech]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref> After leaving office, Obama bought a house in D.C. for $8.1 million.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/obamas-purchase-d-c-house-for-8-1-million-new-report-says.html Obamas purchase D.C. house for $8.1 million, new report says]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref><ref>Bennett, Kate (June 2, 2017). [https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/obama-house-kalorama/index.html Obamas purchase their DC rental house for millions]. ''CNN''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref> In August and September 2017, Obama made a combined $1.2 million from three Wall Street speeches.<ref>Shelbourne, Mallory (September 18, 2017). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/351138-obama-making-big-money-speeches-to-wall-street-firms-report Obama making big-money speeches to Wall Street firms: report]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref><ref>Yilek, Caitlin (September 18, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-making-400000-speeches-to-wall-street-firms-report/article/2634736 Obama making $400,000 speeches to Wall Street firms: Report]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref><ref>Kight, Stef W. (September 18, 2017). [https://www.axios.com/trump-wants-a-july-4th-military-parade-2486828811.html Obama to make $1.2 million from 3 Wall Street speeches]. ''Axios''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/19/obama-cashes-in-on-wall-street-appearances-report-says.html Obama cashes in on Wall Street appearances, report says]. ''Fox News''. September 19, 2017. Retrieved September 19, 2017.</ref> In late 2019, the Obama family bought a mansion in Martha's Vineyard for $11.75 million.<ref>Multiple references:
*Calicchio, Dom (December 5, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamas-pay-11-75m-for-marthas-vineyard-home-report Obamas pay $11.75M for Martha’s Vineyard home on nearly 30 acres: report]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
*Kurtz, Judy (December 6, 2019). [https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/473343-obamas-buy-home-in-marthas-vineyard Obamas buy home on Martha's Vineyard]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
*Bleau, Hannah (December 6, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/06/obamas-officially-purchase-11-75-million-waterfront-mansion-in-marthas-vineyard/ Obamas Officially Purchase $11.75 Million Waterfront Mansion in Martha’s Vineyard]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 6, 2019.</ref>

Several of Obama's failures as U.S. president were revealed shortly after he left office, as it was found that [[Syria]] continued to possess chemical weapons after Obama stated they were gone, that the Obama Administration misrepresented the release of some Iranian prisoners, and that the Obama Administration had unmasked [[Trump Transition]] officials (See: [[Barack Obama Controversies]] and [[Obamagate timeline]]).<ref>Shepherd, Todd (April 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-first-100-days-as-ex-president/article/2621662 Obama's first 100 days as ex-president]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved May 1, 2017.</ref>

After leaving office, Obama started his own foundation, the Obama Foundation, and set to work on building his presidential center and library.<ref>Berger, Judson (May 3, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/clinton-obama-return-to-public-eye-with-new-ventures.html Clinton, Obama return to public eye with new ventures]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref> Obama's 2018 budget request, which was over $1.1 million, made him the most expensive U.S. president in the country's history.<ref>Multiple references:
*Rodriguez, Katherine (September 2, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/02/obama-is-the-most-expensive-ex-president-for-american-taxpayers/ Obama Is the Most Expensive Ex-President for American Taxpayers]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.
*Dinan, Stephen (August 31, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/31/obama-will-top-bush-most-costly-ex-president/ Obama will top Bush as most costly ex-president]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.
*Caralle, Katelyn (September 1, 2017). [https://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-most-costly-former-president-2018/ Obama Poised to Be Most Costly Former President in 2018]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.
*Bohon, Dave (September 2, 2016). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26826-obama-most-expensive-ex-president-ever Obama Most Expensive Ex-President Ever]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 2, 2017.</ref> It was reported in June 2018 that construction work related to his presidential library would cost Illinois taxpayers nearly $200 million.<ref>Shaw, Adam (June 16, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/16/work-related-to-obama-presidential-center-to-cost-illinois-taxpayers-nearly-200-million.html Work related to Obama Presidential Center to cost Illinois taxpayers nearly $200 million]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 16, 2018.</ref><ref>Rodriguez, Katherine (June 16, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/16/report-obama-presidential-center-cost-taxpayers-200-million/ Report: Obama Presidential Center to Cost Taxpayers Nearly $200 Million]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 16, 2018.</ref> Despite promising not to cut down any trees in Jackson Park, where the library was planned to be built, the Obama Center and Chicago Park District began removing trees anyway for work related to the library construction.<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (August 11, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/11/obama-center-breaks-promise-remove-trees-jackson-park/ Obama Center Breaks Pledge Not to Remove Trees in Jackson Park]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 11, 2018.</ref>

It was reported in May 2017 that the Justice Department under Obama likely discriminated against veterans – in violation of federal law requiring the government to give preference to veterans in job hiring – by attempting to influence them to withdraw their applications.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (May 17, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/17/obama-doj-refused-hire-veterans-jobs-investigation/ Obama’s Justice Department refused to hire military veterans for jobs]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 19, 2017.</ref>

Obama did not give any mention of [[Independence Day]] on his Facebook or Twitter on that day in 2017 while he was visiting [[Seoul]].<ref>Huston, Warner Todd (July 5, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/05/july-4th-no-mention-independence-day-barack-obamas-twitter-facebook/ On July 4th: No Mention of Independence Day on Barack Obama’s Twitter or Facebook]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 5, 2017.</ref>

Obama denied the existence [[Barack Obama Controversies|of any scandals]] "that embarrassed us" during his presidency.<ref>Spiering, Charlie (February 27, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/27/obama-didnt-scandal-embarrassed-us-presidency/ Barack Obama: ‘We Didn’t Have a Scandal that Embarrassed Us’ in My Presidency]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved February 27, 2018.</ref> In May 2018, he repeated his claim that the Administration "didn't have scandals" and was less corrupt than other modern administrations.<ref>Manchester, Julia (May 24, 2018). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/389188-obama-jokingly-brags-i-didnt-have-scandals-during-my-presidency Obama jokingly brags: 'I didn't have scandals' during my presidency]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved May 24, 2018.</ref> He repeated these false claims in March 2019.<ref>Chaitin, Daniel (March 6, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-brags-in-canada-my-team-never-experienced-scandal-made-mistakes-of-integrity Obama brags in Canada: My team never experienced scandal, made 'mistakes of integrity']. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved March 6, 2019.</ref> In July 2018, he gave a speech in [[South Africa]] calling for [[basic income]], saying he wanted to pay more taxes, and advocating for other left-wing ideas such as criticizing income inequality despite admitting he was very wealthy.<ref>Multiple references:
*Newman, Alex (July 24, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/29624-in-south-africa-obama-outlines-globalist-agenda-for-humanity In South Africa, Obama Outlines Globalist Agenda for Humanity]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 25, 2018.
*Singman, Brooke (July 17, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/obama-slams-populist-right-wing-billionaires-touts-liberal-push-for-universal-income.html Obama slams populist 'right-wing billionaires,' touts liberal push for 'universal income']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Caplan, Joshua (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/17/barack-obama-preaches-wealth-redistribution-in-south-africa/ Barack Obama Lectures World on Racial, Wealth Inequality in South Africa]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Boyer, Dave (July 17, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/17/obama-surprised-his-wealth-wants-pay-more-taxes/ Obama says he's 'surprised' by his wealth, wants to pay more taxes]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Hoft, Jim (July 18, 2018). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/obama-ridicules-the-rich-theres-only-so-big-a-house-you-can-have-obamas-just-bought-8-1-million-house/ Obama Ridicules the Rich: “There’s Only So Big a House You Can Have” …After Obamas Just Bought $8.1 Million House]. ''Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved July 18, 2018.
See also:
*Pollak, Joel B. (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/17/barack-obama-government-individual-south-africa/ Barack Obama in South Africa: ‘Government Exists to Serve the Individual, and Not the Other Way Around’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
*Lee, Tony (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/17/obama-concedes-new-international-elite-out-of-touch-for-exploiting-lower-cost-immigrant-labor/ Obama Concedes ‘New International Elite’ Out of Touch for Exploiting ‘Lower-Cost Immigrant Labor’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.</ref> He also advanced his [[War on Sovereignty|anti-nation-state agenda]] in the speech,<ref>Munro, Neil (July 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/economics/2018/07/17/obama-abolish-the-nation-state/ Obama: Abolish the Nation-State!] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 17, 2018.</ref> and he praised the country's racist strongman leaders.<ref>Newman, Alex (July 25, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/29634-amid-racist-land-grabs-obama-praises-south-african-strongman Amid Racist Land Grabs, Obama Praises South African Strongman]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 25, 2018. See also:
*Newman, Alex (July 29, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/29658-obama-slams-trump-while-deifying-communist-terror-leader Obama Slams Trump While Deifying Communist Terror Leader]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 30, 2018.</ref> On September 7, 2018, Obama made a speech in which he harshly criticized President Trump, breaking his promise not to publicly make such statements.<ref>Multiple references:
*Spiering, Charlie (September 7, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/07/bitter-barack-obama-breaks-months-of-silence-to-trash-donald-trump/ Bitter Barack Obama Breaks Months of Silence to Trash Donald Trump]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
*Schallhorn, Kaitlyn; Shaw, Adam (September 7, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/07/obama-returns-to-campaign-trail-with-fiery-speech-trump-counters-fell-asleep.html Obama returns to campaign trail with fiery speech; Trump counters, 'I fell asleep']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
*Duke, Selwyn (September 8, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/30014-obama-s-back-slamming-trump-and-projecting-his-own-sins-onto-gop Obama’s Back, Slamming Trump and Projecting His Own Sins onto GOP]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 9, 2018.</ref> He also tried to take credit for the strong economic growth under President Trump.<ref>Byas, Steve (September 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/30062-obama-brazenly-tried-to-take-credit-for-better-economy-under-trump Obama Brazenly Tried to Take Credit for Better Economy Under Trump]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 15, 2018.</ref> Obama made speeches criticizing [[nationalism]] and promoting [[globalism]].<ref>Caplan, Joshua (September 28, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/28/barack-obama-lectures-europeans-about-nationalism-in-denmark/ Barack Obama Lectures Europeans About Nationalism — in Denmark]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 28, 2018.</ref> On November 2, 2018, Obama called on Florida voters to vote Democrat because it would help [[Cuba]].<ref>Spiering, Charlie (November 3, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/03/cuba-first-barack-obama-says-florida-democrats-help-make-cuba-great-again/ Cuba First: Barack Obama Says Florida Democrats Will Help Make Cuba Great Again]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 3, 2018.</ref> In a speech in Berlin in April 2019, Obama referred to himself 392 times, a personal record and more than doubling his previous record.<ref>Gage, John (April 8, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barack-obama-refers-to-himself-a-record-breaking-392-times-in-berlin-speech Barack Obama refers to himself a record-breaking 392 times in Berlin speech]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 8, 2019.</ref>

Many of the candidates that Obama campaigned for in the [[2018 midterm election]]s lost.<ref>Lowe, Tiana (November 7, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-loses-again https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-loses-again]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved November 7, 2018.</ref>

While the state of [[Iowa]] once played a key role in Obama's election, by 2019, Democrat candidates almost never mentioned his name in the state.<ref>Simonson, Joseph (April 9, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barack-who-iowa-propelled-obama-to-the-white-house-now-no-one-speaks-his-name Barack who? Iowa propelled Obama to the White House — now, no one speaks his name]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 9, 2019.</ref> By 2019, Obama became disliked even by left-wing Democrats.<ref>Miller, S.A.; McLaughlin, Seth (August 3, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/1/obama-presidential-legacy-attacked-joe-biden-2020-/ Why Democrats are tossing Obama under the bus]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 3, 2019.</ref>

==Legacy==
In September 2016, a [[Parasite|parasitic]] worm, the [[Baracktrema obamai]], was named after Obama.<ref>Kaplan, Sarah (September 9, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/09/09/scientists-like-barack-obama-so-much-that-they-named-a-parasite-after-him/ Scientists like Barack Obama so much that they named a parasite after him]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved September 9, 2016.</ref> As of December 2016, at least 15 schools in the United States have been named after Obama. [[Illinois]], a very liberal state, enacted a law making August 4 "Barack Obama Day," and it almost made the day a paid holiday for its state workers despite its dire financial situation caused by leftist policies.<ref>Multiple references:
*Huston, Warner Todd (August 7, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/07/illinois-makes-obama-birthday-state-holiday/ Deep Blue Illinois Makes Obama’s Birthday a State Holiday]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 8, 2017.
*Carter, Brandon (August 6, 2017). [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/345523-illinois-makes-barack-obama-day-a-state-holiday Illinois makes 'Barack Obama Day' a state holiday]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
*Siciliano, John (August 6, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/barack-obama-day-is-official-holiday-in-illinois/article/2630769 'Barack Obama Day' is official holiday in Illinois]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
*[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/07/illinois-governor-signs-law-to-honor-barack-obamas-birthday.html Illinois governor signs law to honor Barack Obama's birthday]. ''Fox News'' (from the ''Associated Press''). Retrieved August 7, 2017.
See also:
*Gearty, Robert (August 4, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/04/illinois-celebrates-first-official-barack-obama-day.html Illinois celebrates first official 'Barack Obama Day']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 4, 2018.
*Rodriguez, Katherine (August 4, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/04/illinois-residents-celebrate-first-annual-barack-obama-day/ Illinois Residents Celebrate First Annual ‘Barack Obama Day’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved AUgust 5, 2018.</ref>

Conservatives strongly criticized Obama for his far-left and negative policies and the negative impact of those policies.<ref>Scaliger, Charles (February 23, 2017). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/25433-barack-obama-s-legacy Barack Obama's Legacy]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Adelmann, Bob (January 20, 2017). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/25183-is-obama-worst-u-s-president Is Obama Worst U.S. President?] ''The New American''. Retrieved June 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Vargas, Mark (September 16, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-legacy-of-barack-obama-and-its-not-a-good-one The legacy of Barack Obama (and it's not a good one)]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 16, 2018.</ref> [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote, "Obama's legacy is to double the national debt & dramatically reduce US influence in the world."<ref>https://twitter.com/dineshdsouza/status/760447860638789632</ref> During Obama's 8 years in office, Democrats lost over 1,000 seats in the federal and state governments.<ref name="1,000Seats"/> Obama abused his power by using [[surveillance]] tools granted under the [[Patriot Act]], intended to fight terrorism and [[Al Qaeda]], against domestic political opponents and the [[Republican party]]. Obama may best be remembered for his use of coercion, [[police state]] tactics and [[authoritarian]] tendencies.

Upon assuming office, President [[Donald Trump]] wiped out much of Obama's last-minute regulatory actions through [[Congressional Review]].<ref>Korte, Gregory (March 27, 2017). [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/27/trump-signs-four-bills-roll-back-obama-era-regulations/99690456/ Trump signs four bills to roll back Obama-era regulations]. ''USA Today''. Retrieved March 28, 2017.</ref><ref>Pollak, Joel B. (April 15, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/15/trump-congressional-review-act-legislative-milestone/ Trump’s Use of the Congressional Review Act Is a Legislative Milestone]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 15, 2017.</ref> Trump also adopted a stronger foreign policy.<ref>Llorente, Elizabeth (April 14, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/14/ex-obama-officials-say-hesitation-to-use-force-in-syria-elsewhere-emboldened-adversaries.html Ex-Obama officials say hesitation to use force in Syria, elsewhere, emboldened adversaries]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 14, 2017.</ref><ref>Collinson, Stephen (April 14, 2017). [https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/politics/donald-trump-military-afghanistan/index.html Trump carves out tough commander-in-chief posture]. ''CNN''. Retrieved April 14, 2017.</ref>

Many commentators have noticed similarities between Mr. Obama and Breaking Bad's [[Walter White]], including ''The New York Times'',<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/fashion/barack-obama-bryan-cranston-table-for-three.html?mcubz=0</ref> Politico,<ref>https://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2013/12/obama-is-hooked-on-breaking-bad-180326</ref> and USA Today.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/12/30/obama-television-shows-breaking-bad-house-of-cards-homeland/4247651/</ref>

Former Obama [[HUD Secretary]] [[Julian Castro]] and Joe Biden sparred over who was the heir to the Obama legacy in the Democratic pre-primary [[2020 presidential election]] debates. Obama withheld his support from his former vice president, [[Biden's age]] presumably being the main factor. Castro argued, "I'm fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama, and you're not."<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/13/julian-castro-attacks-joe-biden-health-care-im-fulfilling-legacy-barack-obama-youre-not/</ref>

In an article entitled, ''If God doesn’t do something soon, he’s going to owe Sodom & Gomorrah an apology'', Tom Tillison wrote, "Oppose 9-year-old drag queens in post-Obama America and the [[liberal media]] is sure to tag you with a “[[homophobe]]” label."<ref>https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/10/27/drag-kids-debuts-if-god-doesnt-do-something-soon-hes-going-to-owe-sodom-gomorrah-an-apology-844721</ref>

==Further reading==
*Margolis, Matt; Noonan, Mark (2018). [https://www.amazon.com/Worst-President-History-Legacy-Barack/dp/1682618137/ ''The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama'']. New York: Bombardier Books. ISBN 978-1682618134.

==See also==
*[[Obamagate timeline 2009-2015]]
*[[Obamagate timeline|Obamagate timeline 2016 election year]]
*[[Russiagate timeline 2017]]
*[[Russiagate timeline|Russiagate timeline 2018]]
*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Ukrainian crisis]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Essay:The Obama Manifesto]]
*[[Obama syndrome]]
*[[Barack Obama's past dog meat eating and 2012 election campaign]]
*[[Barack Obama's "Last chance at dinner" fundraising letter]]
*[[Barack Obama is the antichrist speculation]]
*[[Essay: Does Barack Hussein Obama care if America defaults on credit?]]
*[[Essay:The lie that we are safer under Obama]]
*[[Essay: Foes Want Obama to Fail, A Republican Perspective]]
*[[Essay:Impeach Obama]]
*[[Benghazigate timeline]]
*[[Obama's second term agenda]]
*[[ObamaRail]]
*[[Obama sequester]]
*[[Obama (disambiguation)]]
*[[Essay: President's speech after the defeat of two tyrants]]
* [[Unconstitutional]] [[Executive amnesty]] via Obama [[Executive Order]]s
* [[Universal health care]] for [[Illegal immigration|illegal aliens]] via [[ObamaCare]]
*[[FusionGPS]]
*[[Deep state coup]]
*[[Crossfire Hurricane]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Profile] on the ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress''
*[http://barackobamadoubletalk.com/ Barack Obama Doubletalk]
*[https://archive.is/73G5z Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States, Chicago, IL | August 26, 2008]
*[https://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/03/national-journal-obama-facing-crisis-over-incompetence/ National Journal: Obama facing crisis over incompetence]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO8qZP_iU9I Obama - The Anti-Israel President]
{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{2012 presidential candidates}}
{{Globalism}}
{{Deep State}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Nobel Laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Progressivism]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Chicago]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Globalists]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Hillary Clinton email scandal]]
[[Category:Blame America Crowd]]
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]][[Category:Soros Puppets]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]
[[Category:Terrorism]]