Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2020-12-01T18:56:32Z

Zark Muckerburg: removed post

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Drudge Bias ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:As a fairly active Wikipedia editor myself, I can attest that I post only what I can back up with primary, non-editorialized sources. That being said, this isn't always the case for all Wikipedia users. Since the site is entirely user generated, there is a great deal of room for opinion to filter in. The fact is, any user generated site, this one especially included, is prone to the whims and biases of its users, and it is the job of other editors to call attention to these biases and ensure their verification. So, if anyone has a problem with liberal bias in Wikipedia, they can fix it by posting a well cited edit, which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for this site, which allows protected and edit-proof pages. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 6:44 9 August 2010 (EST)

::I originally started editing Wikipedia about 8 months after Ed Poor, Logan. Under my original account name I racked up about double the edits than I have made to CP. What you say might have been true the first year or two of Wikipedia's existence, but certainly it is no longer true. Anyone with a liberal bias (which accounts to 90% of the administrators) and 75% of the editors, has a distinct advantage, even using acceptable sources, as the liberal-thinkers there will offer their own conflicting sources and through the device of "consensus" simply out-vote the more conservative users. If you really believe what you say, make an account under another name, edit everything from a conservative point of view, and watch the high-jinx ensue. I don't think you will be happy with the results.... --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:27, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Jim Pouillon ==

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]

==I beg to differ==

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]

Worth including?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Possible Bias ==

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wind turbine line ==

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states:
'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

:The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

:The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Hans Bethe and SDI ==
Links:
*[[Hans Bethe]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Manhattan Project]]
*[[atomic bomb]]
*[[quantum physics]]
*[[Nobel Prize]]
*[[SDI]]
*[[nuclear proliferation]]

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

:::::Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

:::::p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

::::::Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

::::::This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

:::::::Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::Jane Fonda was only "important" concerning Vietnam because of her highly publicized betrayal. No one respected Jane Fonda's expertise on military strategy, and there's no reason to think Hans Bethe had any expertise on engineering with respect to SDI. Wikipedia might as well feature Jane Fonda's opinion about SDI also!

::::::::More generally, it's a [[liberal trick]] to take a liberal who claims expertise in one field and try to pass him off as an expert in another field. That's what Wikipedia does with Bethe's opinion about SDI, and it is deceptive. Feel free to preface Bethe's liberal opinion about SDI with a disclaimer like, "Someone who had no training or expertise in engineering, Hans Bethe, was a critic of the engineering feasibility of SDI." See how many seconds that clarification lasts on Wikipedia before a liberal censors it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::::That seems to be a slippery slope: Do you accept only the opinions of experts? Are only biologists allowed to speak about evolution? Then Conservapedia's article on [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] should be introduced by the sentence : "Someone who had no training or expertise in biology, Andrew Schlafly, was a critic of [[Lenski]]'s work and wrote the following...."
:::::::::[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 08:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::::No, we don't overrely on "experts", see [[best of the public]]. We do object to how liberals deceitfully present an "expert opinion" in a field about which he has no expertise, as in the Bethe case. And since you raised the example of Lenski, have you been able to figure out which field his college education was in?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST)

== Stats? ==

I noticed the claim added by a user that 'more than half of wikipedia users who claim to Christian are in fact mocking Christianity'

While saying 'some' might be appropriate, without any statistics to back that up the claim of 'more than half' is dubious at best. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 08:16, 26 January 2010 (EST)

:I added that in, it seemed like more than half to me, but I didn't count. Honestly the whole section should be re-worded; I doubt sincerely that the page includes all Wikipedia editors, or even all of the prominent ones. The page is a joke, but it's worth mentioning on here. The section needs to be written in a way that doesn't assume any kind of ''accuracy'' on the part of the poll, and instead focuses on the staggering anti-religion content it drew.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)
:I also think this page could be looked at: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion] . It's probably alot more reliable, and has atheists or agnostics making up 3252 pages of users, and supposed Christians 1540 pages.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)

::Please add your info as you think best. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, I re-wrote it and included the new link. I came to the conclusion of ''8 times'' as atheistic, since 2/3 = ~66%, and 8x8=64. Math isn't my area though.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== Saul Alinsky - wiki wont allow debate ==

I've added the following to the Saul Alinsky wiki page:

It is the opinion of some that Saul Alinksy was an avowed communist and believed that the only route to pure communism was the destruction of Capitalism. Those that hold this belief point to Alinsky's own words written in his book 'Rules for Radicals' "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Unfortunately, this is repeatedly removed due to 'vandalism'. I can only guess that they're trying to make believe that Saul ALinsky was a righteous patriot and stating facts that tarnish their propaganda is considered 'vandalism'

:Feel free to add it to the list here of more than 200 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

::the first problem here is that alinsky is describing marxists in that quote, and not himself. if you want to claim that he was an avowed communist you need to have him saying 'i am an avowed communist' or 'i believe that evils are caused by capitalism blah blah blah', not 'marxists believe that all evils are caused by capitalism'. just because someone is describing what marxists believe doesnt make that person a marxist. i really dont know anything about alinsky, and have no idea what he was. im just trying to describe why your edit got rejected with some detail. secondly, wikipedia articles about living people try to have much more strict rules about what gets in. so if person X is really a believer in philosophy Y, you need a reputable news source that is quoting him about it, or describing his book, or whatever. IE, if his book was really a big deal, then Im sure some reviews of it were published in various magazines or even academic journals, which you could probably find pretty easily with some help from a reference librarian and a good old academic article database at a library. but basically wikipedia has to have some rules about 'living person' articles in order to avoid libel and slander lawsuits, it cannot afford to let unreviewed opinions get put into articles about living people (although it does happen and there are many cases where wikipedia's rules have failed or been inconsistent... but that doesnt mean the rules themselves are bad ideas imho). good luck with any future editing you do there. [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== I've heard stories of this, can anyone find a proven example? ==

A few years back, a professor of mine told me that he'd seen a case where Wikipedia had made some false claims and cited some made up study. A few weeks later, quite a few websites had picked up the study from Wikipedia. Somebody then removed the original made up reference on Wikipedia and cited the websites which had got it from Wikipedia!!

Wikipedia has now got so big that it can do this. It can actually make things up, people follow it, then it can cite the followers! It can MAKE UP facts then MAKE them well-referenced. If we could just find a proven case of this, it'd really improve this article.

::::::[[User:Newton|Newton]] 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, another reporter at the original newspaper references the second newspaper, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself? [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== Thank you Conservapedia ==

In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias. I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example. The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned. The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ). A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. {{unsigned|Trvl2much}} -- 09:56, 25 April 2010

== Richard Dawkins - contrast Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia soon once more information is added to the Dawkins article ==

Once a significant amount of new information on Richard Dawkins is added to the Richard Dawkins article at Conservapedia I want to highlight the deficiencies of the Wikipedia article and show how their NPOV policy is often a policy in name only. We might even write an open letter to the atheist Mr. Wales and ask him why certain pieces of information is being left out of the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article. Of course, that could be done with the Wikipedia atheism article as well. Since the USA and other countries have such a low estimation of atheism, it might be helpful to point out that the wiki founded by two atheist doesn't adhere to their NPOV policy when it comes to their Richard Dawkins and atheism articles. I had heard that with social media websites around the internet you can help spread a message far and wide. I certainly hope that is true. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Too long! ==

Can this list be split into sublists, perhaps based on topic? It is incredibly long and hard to find information when it is just a list of 200+ items. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 09:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:I'm making this change. My browser just doesn't even load this page. Even the header on the page says it's 200+ KB long, and 32 is the recommended limit. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 18:28, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

:: It's been several months since I posted this, and I was able to break up most of the article into smaller articles. I don't get to conservapedia much these days: frankly I prefer being on Wikipedia and trying to thwart their libral agenda. So I'm asking: '''can someone else please help to split this article into smaller articles, in the same manner that I did this?''' I'd really like to see this completed. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 14:07, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

== Vladimir Lenin ==

Number 4 on this list states that "Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers." In Conservapedia's article on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (for some as-yet-unknown reason titled simply "Lenin"), Conservapedia mentions that the birth date of Vladimir Lenin coincides with the date of Earth Day. As both Mr. Lenin and Earth Day are objects of dislike among conservatives (Lenin led the October Revolution, bringing in an era of communism; he must be the conservative's rough equivalent to Satan), isn't it sort of hypocritical to accuse Wikipedia of using trivia to bias an article in favor of one person, and then to turn around and do the same thing on Conservapedia? [[User:msirois|msirois]] 11:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

:That isn't senseless trivia. Many of the [[communists]] poured into the environmentalist movement, and Earth Day may have been picked for that connection. It's a striking coincidence, and we let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== #12 - Not a good example ==

While there is not doubt Wikipedia is a haven for pro-homosexual thinking, the example of KAPITALIST88 getting blocked is not a good one. I looked into the history of this editor. He used language to attack people that no good person should use. Now, we can forgive his passion in the face of sodomites, but he was challenged about a photograph that he claimed was his own and was then demonstrated to be taken from a website. While others may steal (as with all copyright violation), this editor repeatedly lied about it, thereby breaking the 9th commandment against false witness. I will remove the reference but leave the rest of the text since I believe it's true. But we need o be better than than celebrating sin to advance our cause.[[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::I'm sorry. Here is the section from his talk page history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335552970&oldid=335183331]. Also, here is the section where the other editors discuss his behavior including their concerns about copyvio and what seems to be his repeated efforts to pretend that the photo was his and not taken from a newspaper website [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KAPITALIST88&oldid=335767502#Blocked_3] Thanks. [[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== "Radical Right Wing" derogatory labels ==

Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned.

Now take a look at the article for Code Pink. (about as "radical left wing" as you can get.) Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned.

So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe an extremely radical left-wing group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink 
--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 
21:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)

:Superb example. Could you go ahead and add it as the top of the content entry here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 27 December 2010 (EST)

:: I am *really* new here (first attempt at posting) I am not following what you mean regarding "top of the content entry"--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 21:32, 27 December 2010 (EST)

::It's because Wikipedia abandoned their one, primary rule: Neutral Point of View. We know it, they know it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:27, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== Gatekeepers removing Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters from lists of Progressives who have served in U. S. Congress ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism 

Last year, I added Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine waters to the list of notable current/former Congress members who were progressives. My original addition lasted a few months, then were removed without explanation. I re-added them a couple weeks ago, and editors started immediately removing. I brought up issue on the Discussion page, where I included iron-clad quotes of Obama and Clinton describing themselves as progressives, and noted that Waters has been in the Progressive caucus since the 1990's. I am now in an edit war with leftist editors desperately trying to keep those three names off the list.--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 18:24, 31 December 2010 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)

== Jared Loughner ==

Hello,
Just an observation, Wikipedia does refer to Loughner as a "nihilistic atheist". I feel that his entry should be reworded to reflect how Wikipedia glosses over the fact that this attributed to his actions. Just thinking aloud. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:15, 11 January 2011 (EST)

: It appears to me that Wikipedia added "nihilistic" only after we criticized it here. The history file on Wikipedia shows that it was an addition late today, and you might be interested in checking the precise timing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)

::That's a great observation Andy! It's very pleasing to see that finally the conservative voice is being heard by the liberals at wikipedia. [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:04, 11 January 2011 (EST)

== Gender bias and netball ==

I edited the entries regarding netball and gender email lists under gender bias a bit to attempt to make them more accurate as to what happened at WP. The banned WP editor wasn't banned for his edits on the article, he was banned for attempting to "out" an editor to her supposed real-life employer and for harassment. I also removed individual editors' names because it doesn't really matter ''who'' did the edits, just that they occurred.

== Out of Date Examples ==

Considering how long this list has been around and how extensive it is, there are naturally a few claims that aren't necessarily correct anymore. I found two- 34 and 35, which are about the articles "North American Union" and "Eritrea". I was going to correct it but the spam filter won't allow it. I suspect that there also may be a few other examples that have gone out of date, I think the list might need to be refreshed a bit.--[[User:Pencil|Pencil]] 10:22, 16 December 2011 (EST)

== The "F" word appears 7,000 times. ==

...and the "J" word ("Jesus") appears 47,959 times! [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 09:37, 23 December 2011 (EST)
:Perhaps, but do you think that word belongs in an encyclopedia at all?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:02, 23 December 2011 (EST)
::Yes. It exists, it has a history, people use it. It belongs in an encyclopedia as much as do other unsavory words/ideas such as "murder." [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 10:13, 23 December 2011 (EST)
:::It has as much educational value as toilet water. The number for "F" is 32,000+ if you select all search fields. Biased toward the lowest common denominator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)
::::Jpatt said it well. Wikipedia is rife with anti-intellectual bickering and habitual swearing.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:31, 23 December 2011 (EST)

== Experts? ==

<blockquote>
"Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'"[73]
</blockquote>

I'm a bit confused about this. Thus is it arguing that Wikipedia adopts a [[Best of the Public]] approach? [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:46, 23 December 2011 (EST)
:I've just had a flick through the rest of these - this article is absolutely ridiculous and half of them should be removed simply on common sense. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)

== Redundancy ==

Why is there such a vast amount of examples under "General/Uncategorized"? The point that Wikipedia is left-leaning is very quickly proven; there is no reason to have 60+ examples. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 15:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:If there are duplicate examples, feel free to delete them. This page is not protected. As for not having too many examples, as an encyclopedia, it is necessary that we list all new biases in Wikipedia; indeed, we must continuously show that Wikipedia is biased by having plenty of fresh examples. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::It's just that most of the examples are informal and rude (calling policies "silly" multiple times) and seems to bash Wikipedia just out of spite. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 16:03, 30 December 2011 (EST)

The General/Uncategorized, by my understanding, is not supposed to be there. People should move it to the right page. I worked on this a bit a few months ago. I'm back now. Will try to do more. [[User:RickTx|RickTx]] 16:46, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

== Ethnocentrism ==

Hey,

Have you guys taken a look at the ethnocentrism category on Wikipedia? They have labeled "American exceptionalism" under the category of ethnocentrism and they label it as "nationalism" and are very biased against the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethoncentrism. http://en.wikipedia.org/category:ethoncentrism. You will find American exceptionalism listed there. Among other things I noticed on Wikipedia. They label Creationism under the category of denialism. They have a creation myths category on there, where they label Creationism as a myth. I'm sure that would of interest to you people.

They label Creation Science under the category of Pseudoscience. Are you paying attention? How come none of this stuff has been talked about?
==Page organization==
How about pushing the misc. examples into a separate subpage and then moving the three best examples from each subpage back to the main example list? I suspect most users will just go to the misc. examples and not read the better examples just because they have been sorted by subject matter. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:56, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

:Sounds great. Pleaes improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:17, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
::I am starting but it will take a bit of time to do correctly. Thanks, Andy. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:38, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Any comments or feedback? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:42, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Far-left far-right politics ==

Hey guys,
have you guys checked out the articles promoting the far-left's dismantling of society as if it is a legitimate cause? Have you seen the far-right politics article that basically paints the far-right as supremacist and hierarchical and bigoted, while it praises far-left politics and even supports their radical destruction if society and supporting anarchy by dismantling the social structure and creating anarchy and destroying the "supremacist" and painting those who want a socially-structured society as "Far-right" in typical communist language. While failing to mention the black-supremacist politics common on the far-left, their Islamic supremacist politics and presents far-left politics as a healthy and balanced form of politics. They present the fringe left ideals of dismantling and destroying social structures and actively promote far-left politics, while "denigrating" far-right politics by proclaiming them "extremists" and in favor of social oppression, racism, supremacist politics that involve race and a society where a balanced social structure and healthy and socially normal society is presented as a "far-right" hierarchial ideal, while failing to mention the racism on the far-left, its supremacist anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian politics, its hatred against Israel, its hate rallies calling for killing Bush. Nope, far-left politics good, far-right (our politics of regular conservatives smeared as "far-right" by Wikipedia. Check out those two articles about far-right politics and far-left politics and you'll see what I am talking about.

== Updating this page when issues are fixed on Wikipedia ==

I edited Wikipedia to fix a few of the issues mentioned on this page and subpages (for example, adding the official picture of Sally Kern); should the fixed issues just be removed from this page, or should they be edited to say that Wikipedia used to have these issues before they were fixed in response to being mentioned here? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] 14:15, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
:In my opinion I think that the individual issues should stay here, but with the added caveat that they were addressed and corrected on such-and-such date. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

::Agreed. Then maybe readers can see how long the bias lasts without correction. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:45, 17 August 2013 (EDT)
That is why it is important to use permalinks when citing to Wikipedia. I believe that examples should remain on these pages. But if an example is fixed after a short period, we may consider moving it to the subpage and replacing it with another example from that subpage which has not yet been fixed. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:39, 20 August 2013 (EDT)

== New example for you ==

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388479/neil-degrasse-tysons-text-burning-followers-tim-cavanaugh

--[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 11:40, 23 September 2014 (EDT)

== My Own Case ==

I have an unusual case. I was reviewing the particulars of what happened with my Wikipedia ban. I may be the only editor in Wikipedia history to have been indefinitely banned for over 4 years because I fixed a typo. I think my case may prove to be one of the strongest examples of Wikipedia bias because there ultimately was no justification for the ban.

1. Claims that I'd "edit warred" were actually caused by my being lured into an edit war over fixing a typo.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=363077950#New_block.2C_now_lifted] The controversial edit I made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_the_United_States&action=historysubmit&diff=363044921&oldid=363031183] was in actuality just a typo fix, the word was wrong given the Gallup source. This was discussed here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#May_2010] UltraExactzz realized I was being falsely accused of an edit war and reversed the ban. [[User:NeutralHomer]] furthermore attempted to force an edit war over added template warnings to my talk page which I considered a violation of [[WP:HUSH]], I should have the right to delete warnings posted to my page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#May_2010]

2. A community topic ban was reimposed by the same editor who opposed my edits in the first place, while falsely claiming consensus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#Topic_ban] JzG was the same editor who opposed my edits and tried to get me in trouble for them months earlier.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=334164599#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F] In actuality the so-called "consensus" was reached only by editors I myself was disagreeing with and had contacted by posting notices about the conflict on their page to let them know they were being discussed in the conversation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Topic_ban]

3. Even then the topic ban only applied to articles, not their talk pages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Topic_ban] I was blocked ultimately not for making edits to any page, but simply discussing rationally on a talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=363239597][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=363239597] This was mentioned here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Indefinitely_Blocked_for_violating_the_topic_ban]

4. Afterward my talk page was redirected to my user page by [[User:Innotata]] to prevent my appealing my block for years.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&action=history]

Basically I got accused of edit warring after someone reverted my attempts to fix a typo, resulting in a topic ban, and then got banned for violating the topic ban because I made edits to the Obama talk page. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:56, 1 February 2015 (EST)

== Osteopathy? ==

The current Wikipedia page on Osteopathy, in the article's lead area, describes osteopathy as pseudo-medicine, and as "quackery," despite the fact that American law equates osteopathy as a legal equal to regular medical practice (allopathy). The entire lead section of Wikipedia's current Osteopathy article is written in such a way so as to lead a typical reader to believe that osteopathy has little or no proven scientific value. Would anybody here mind if I added a section about osteopathy? Thanks, [[User:Npov-maniac|Npov-maniac]] ([[User talk:Npov-maniac|talk]]) 18:12, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:There's no need to add a new section for it -- I recommend adding it to the "Science and Evolution" section. Unless it's arguably one of the most notable/blatant examples of WP bias in this topic (compared to the others), I recommend just adding it to the sub-article. I also recommend adding permalinks. Besides all this, I think adding this would be helpful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

==Increase in Bias after 2016 Election==
In the past, to Wikipedia's credit, I think that they tried to stop bias like people labeling groups like Family Research Council "hate groups" merely because groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center said they were. However, it seems that, within the last dozen months or so, that they've been letting such accusations as "hate group" or "far right" or things of that nature sink through. They've had articles on the Parkland March but, as far as I know, nothing on the pro-life march lately. Also, they even have entries like "fake news" where they try and define what fake news is. Besides, the Wikimedia Foundation is definitely a Left-wing foundation. Admittedly, it's not one of the big ones like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc, but it is definitely one of them. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

== Homosexuality and Evolution edits==

I added in another thing to the homosexuality section. You wouldn't believe it, but if you even change the parts in Wikipedia's "same sex marriage in the United States" article that read "states that support same sex marriage" to accurately say "states that support the legalization of same sex marriage" you'll get kicked off of their site. What a bunch of queers. Whoever owns Wikipedia must be some kind of pedophile.

In addition in the "Evolution" section I took out the part that said "despite the strong evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together...". On the contrary, there is strong evidence that dinosaurs did not live with man, and if someone is vandalizing this site, please don't. {{unsigned|Knowledge spouse}}

:The part about dinosaurs was intentional, and there is strong evidence that they lived together. CP does not dogmatically accept evolution to the exclusion of other scientifically and historically valid views. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:06, 6 December 2018 (EST)

==Bias in coverage==
Would it not be good to have a section in this article devoted to Wikipedia's bias of coverage in its topics? This could say that there tends to be a big emphasis on popular media culture topics in Wikipedia - as Wikipedia itself points out, the article on [[Coronation Street]] is longer than the article on [[Tony Blair]]. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

"Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics."
What's wrong with that? Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. And it's not so much biased against America as just inclusive when it comes to the rest of the world.
:Not all the news in Wikipedia is locked by administrators, so if you want to counter the bias of coverage go ahead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:48, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

==Trump administration family separation policy==
I think this article is a good example of bias gone extreme on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has an entire article with the completely false title "Trump administration family separation policy". Trump has never had any policy of separating children from their families. The Zero Tolerance policy is about following the law, about prosecuting those who break the law. It has nothing to do with family separations, and is not the primary cause of those separations. The family separations were a direct consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, that demanded that children be released while the "same should not be afforded" to their mother/parents. A court order that came while Obama was President. The Executive order that President Trump announced to end these family separations did NOT stop or alter his Zero Tolerance Policy at all(the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of families) but only requested that the Attorney General have the Flores Settlement altered(he ordered the AG to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 "Flores settlement", in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings").
This Wikipedia article is based on pure political propaganda from media reports hostile to the current U.S. President, and ignorance of the actual facts.
The title of the articles is therefor false. Also every single sentence in the beginning of the article is false:

"The Trump administration family separation policy is an aspect of US President Donald Trump's immigration policy" - '''Wrong. Trump has never had any policy of separating families.'''

"The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation". - '''Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.'''

"It was adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018, however later investigations found that the practice of family separations had begun a year previous to the public announcement" - '''Because it had NOTHING to do with the Zero Tolerance Policy, but was a direct result of the ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016.'''

"Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US illegally. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services". - '''Wrong. This was a consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Law, not due to any policy of the President'''

I have made many attempts at changing/renaming/deleting the Wikipedia article, as well as discussing the bias on the talk page, only to be completely dismissed by the left leaning administrators involved in the page.
--[[User:PolitiCeon|PolitiCeon]] ([[User talk:PolitiCeon|talk]]) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

== Excellent source to use for this article series ==

A Breitbart writer, whose pseudonym is "T.D. Adler," has written many articles of examples of blatant Wikipedia bias: [https://www.breitbart.com/author/t-d-adler/] These should be used to expand and update this article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:27, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
:Terrific suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

==Racial and gender bias in Wikipedia==
This article could point out that Wikipedia itself has articles entitled "Gender bias in Wikipedia" and "Racial bias in Wikipedia". [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 12:35, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2020-12-01T18:48:38Z

Zark Muckerburg: /* Larry Sanger, Co-Founder, criticizes Wikipedia Bias in his blog post */ new section

Talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus

2020-12-01T06:12:22Z

Zark Muckerburg: Created talk page

I think we should replace the first image. It is not the official logo of the group.

Joe Biden

2020-11-26T23:15:30Z

Zark Muckerburg: Changes "Sh*t" to "Full of sh*t", also added more information to the same sentence

{{Officeholder
|name=Joseph Biden
|image=JoeBiden.jpg
|party=[[Democratic party|Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Jill Biden]]
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=47th
|terms=January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
|president=[[Barack Obama]]
|preceded=[[Dick Cheney]]
|former=Hopefully
|succeeded=[[Mike Pence]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Delaware
|terms=January 3, 1973 – January 15, 2009
|preceded=[[Cale Boggs]]
|status=f
|succeeded=[[Ted Kaufman]]
}}
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th District
|terms=November 4, 1970 – November 8, 1972
|preceded=Henry Folsom
|former=y
|succeeded=Francis Swift
}}
}}
:{{See also|Biden Crime Family|Biden Putsch|}}
'''Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden, Jr.''', or '''Beijing Biden, Creepy Uncle Joe, Quid pro quo Joe''' and many others (born<ref>his birth name was Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.</ref> November 20, 1942, see: [[Biden's age]]), was the [[Vice President of the United States]] and served as [[President Barack Obama]]'s token [[segregation]]ist. He is famously known as the architect of mass incarceration<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cory-booker-calls-joe-biden-an-architect-of-mass-incarceration</ref> and of the most extensive [[voter fraud]] organization in history.<ref>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/10/24/biden_we_have_put_together_the_most_extensive_and_inclusive_voter_fraud_organization_in_the_history_of_american_politics.html</ref> He is also a pawn of the Chinese Communist Party.<ref>Gertz, Bill (November 11, 2020). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/11/joe-biden-backs-china-appeasement/ Biden favors China appeasement]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved November 14, 2020.</ref> As the [[Democratic party]] nominee in the [[2020 presidential election]] he was endorsed by [[Neo-Nazi]] [[white supremacist]] [[Richard Spencer]]<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/24/white-supremacist-who-organized-charlottesville-race-riots-endorses-joe-biden/</ref> and the official organ of the [[genocidal]] [[Chinese Communist Party|Communist party of China]].<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1198289.shtml</ref> Biden has been implicated in [[pay-to-play]] [[corruption]] in the [[Biden-Burisma]] scandal<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/hunter-biden-emails-show-leveraging-connections-with-dad-to-boost-burisma-pay/</ref> and is in a business partnership with the [[People's Liberation Army]] of the [[People's Republic of China]].<ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/a-collusion-tale-the-bidens-and-china/</ref><ref>https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/biden-son-brother-pitched-us-infrastructure-deals-chinese</ref>
[[File:Electoral Map 11-10-20.png|left|350px|thumb|Electoral Map as of November 10, 2020. Biden 227, Trump 231, 80 uncounted.<ref>https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/decision-desk-trump-won-the-state-of-north-carolina-20201110</ref>]]
Through [[voter fraud]], Biden amassed enough fraudulent ballots to give the appearance of a [[Blue Mirage]].<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/11/10/does-anyone-really-think-that-americans-elected-this-senile-nazi-president/</ref> Biden has made it clear that he woild not hold China accountable for the [[CCP pandemic]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52-vVoPcJAk</ref> He pledged to raise taxes by undoing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which helped the economy boom, and threatens to replace all the jobs lost during the [[coronavirus]] with clean energy jobs,<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/06/the-election-fallacy-of-the-intellectual-conservatives-beltway-republicans-are-decepticons/</ref> promote the [[Green New Deal]], and the supposed "[[Equal Rights Amendment]]." Forced abortion would be "the law of the land."<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/06/biden-vows-make-roe-v-wade-law-land-abortion-law-overturned/</ref>

During the Blue Mirage, Biden's purported appointment of a [[liberal]] [[white supremacist]], [[Los Angeles]] mayor [[Eric Garcetti]] as [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]], was met with protests by the [[Black Lives Matter]] organization.<ref>https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-lives-matter-leader-calls-l-a-mayor-garcetti-a-liberal-white-supremacist-speaks-out-against-potential-cabinet-appointment</ref>

On April 25, 2019, Biden announced his candidacy against President Trump in 2020 and was the immediate [[Democratic party]] frontrunner.<ref>Biden is considered the [[Konstantin Chernenko]] of the modern [[Left]].</ref> The Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement at the University of Pennsylvania received $70 million form the [[Communist Chinese]] government. The Biden Center did not disclose the money came from China, as required by law.<ref>https://nlpc.org/2020/05/21/complaint-filed-against-university-of-pennsylvania-and-biden-center-for-undisclosed-china-mega-donations/</ref> Biden personally received $900,000 from the Biden Center, money which may have originated with Chinese communists.<ref>https://www.dickmorris.com/penn-univ-paid-biden-900000-wont-say-how-much-was-from-china-lunch-alert/#commentblock</ref>
[[File:Klain rigged elections.jpg|left|350px|thumb|Biden [[chief of staff]] [[Ron Klain]] publicly agrees that elections are rigged.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/12/bidens-pick-for-chief-of-staff-agrees-that-elections-are-rigged/</ref>]]
==Compromised by the CCP==
[[File:Biden-Xi toast.jpg|left|300px|thumb|Biden toasts CCP boss [[Xi Jinping]]. According to the ''Black Book of Communism'', the leftist regime of Beijing has murdered more than 60 million of its own people over its 70 years of existence.]]
Biden's son [[Hunter Biden]] is partnered with the [[People's Republic of China|Chinese state]]. Joe Biden holds a 10% interest. Hunter's entire investment partnership uses Chinese state money from its social security fund to the China Development Bank. The partnership, [[Bohai Harvest|Bohai Harvest RST]], is actually a subsidiary of the Bank of China.

Though the entire size of the fund cannot be reconstructed, a co-founder who is now detained in China, reports that Bohai Harvest RST is not the $1-1.5 billion reported, but rather $6.5 billion. Hunter's stake, as of 2020, is worth at least $50 million if he were to sell it.

All players on the Chinese side of the partnership are linked with influence and intelligence organizations. China uses very innocuous sounding organization names to mask [[PLA]], United Front, or the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs influence/intelligence operations. Hunter was the target of an operation to compromise him and his father.

The operational mastermind behind the efforts to compromise the Biden family is a man named [[Yang Jiechi]]. He is currently the CCP Director of Foreign Affairs leading strategist on [[America]], a [[Politburo]] member, one of the most powerful men in China, and [[Xi Jinping]] confidant. As Chinese ambassador to the United States when Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he met regularly with Senator Biden. Later he was Minister of Foreign Affairs when the Bohai Harvest RST investment partnership was made official in 2013.

Yang Jiechi is the point person in China for dealing with the United States. This raises major [[national Security]] concerns about a Biden administration dealing impartially with an individual in this capacity. These are documented facts from Chinese corporate records such as IPO prospectuses and media, and raise very valid concerns about Biden linkages to China.<ref>https://www.baldingsworld.com/2020/10/22/report-on-biden-activities-with-china/</ref>

In a recorded call made sometime after Ye Jianming, Hunter's business partner, went missing in February 2018, Hunter is heard speaking in an agitated tone,
{{quotebox|"I get calls from my father to tell me that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is calling, but my old partner, Eric, who literally has done me harm for I don’t know how long, is the one taking the calls because my father will not stop sending the calls to Eric. I have another ''New York Times'' reporter calling about my representation of Patrick Ho – the f****** spy chief of China who started the company that my partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded and is now missing. The richest man in the world is missing who was my partner. He was missing since I last saw him in his $58 million apartment inside a $4 billion deal to build the f****** largest f***** LNG port in the world. And I am receiving calls from the Southern District of New York from the U.S. attorney himself. My best friend in business, Devon, has named me as a witness, without telling me, in a [[criminal]] case — and my father, without telling me."<ref>https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1321184369562759172</ref>}}

==2020 Presidential campaign==
[[File:Biden 2020.png|right|350px|thumb|The Chaldean Catholic Cathedral in El Cajon, California was defaced with [[swastika]]s, Biden 2020, upside down crosses and [[BLM]] imagery.<ref>https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/chaldean-catholic-cathedral-vandalized-in-san-diego-with-white-power-blm-and-swastikas-29343]</ref>]]
:{{See also|Joseph Biden 2020 presidential campaign|United States presidential election, 2020‎‎|Democrat election fraud}}
More than 26% of [[African American]]s refused to be put back in chains by Joseph Biden and left the [[Democrat plantation]].<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-media-are-very-disappointed-in-hispanic-voters</ref> Credible [[rape]] allegations and failing cognitive skills of the Democrat nominee were largely ignored by the [[liberal bias]]ed [[mainstream media]].<ref name="lawandcrime.com">https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/new-evidence-appears-to-corroborate-tara-reades-sexual-assault-claim-against-joe-biden-video/</ref> Former [[Bernie Sanders]] co-chair Nina Turner said voting for Joe Biden is like "eating half a bowl of s***."<ref>https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/how-trump-could-win-reelection/612205/</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/aOGJOlnli0c</ref>

In the immediate aftermath of a record number of [[Latino]]s voting for President Trump, Biden's former boss, Barack Obama, launched a vile and racist attack on people of [[Hispanic]] heritage.<ref>https://thepoliticalinsider.com/barack-obama-blasts-hispanics-who-voted-for-trump-they-ignored-the-presidents-racism-because-they-oppose-gay-marriage/</ref> A common question circulating on social media was, "Who did you for, Trump or that senile old racist?"

===The largest voter fraud organization ever===

[[File:2020 Turnout.jpeg|left|350px|thumb|Dozens of documented examples of election shenanigans.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/dozens-of-documented-examples-of-election-shenanigans/</ref>]]
:{{See also|Cloward-Piven strategy|Voter fraud|Ballot harvesting|2020 Voter fraud timeline}}
The probability of mail-in voter fraud creating chaos after Election Day, November 3, 2020, is very real. Some states may force residents to use mail-in ballots during the current health emergency. Voting by mail makes it easier to commit [[fraud]], intimidate voters, and destroy the protections of the secret ballot. Without the oversight of election and polling officials, mail-in ballots are the ballots most vulnerable to being altered, stolen, or forged. Fraud by duplicate voting can occur, once by absentee or mail-in ballot, and then again in person. Employees of private companies hired to contact and register voters have been known to change party affiliations of voters and forge signatures on voter registration forms, among other things.

Ten days before the election Biden went back into hiding and boasted of having assembled "the most extensive and inclusive [[voter fraud]] organization in history.”<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-brags-about-having-most-extensive-voter-fraud-organization-in-history/</ref> When Democrats want to tilt elections in their favor outside the ballot box, [[Marc Elias]] of [[Perkins Coie]] is the go-to guy. Perkins Coie is the Democratic law firm, paid by [[2016 Hillary Clinton campaign|the Hillary Clinton campaign]], that hired [[Fusion GPS]] to dig up dirt on Donald Trump in 2016. They failed, but still compiled the ''[[Steele dossier]]'' full of foreign-solicited lies about Trump and Russia, which was leaked by Obama intelligence officials to try to sabotage the new president’s administration, sow doubt in his election victory, and invalidate the votes of 63 million Americans. From [[Wisconsin]] to [[Nevada]], to [[California]], Marc Elias and the Democrats pushed lawsuits disguised as “election reform” to water down important election safeguards and increase the opportunity for fraud, abuse, and corruption. In August 2020 ''[[Politico]]'' reported,
{{quotebox|[[File:Dominion-states-522x600.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Dominion election equipment with Chinese components used in 28 states.<ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-corrupted-software-used-michigan-county-stole-6000-votes-trump-also-used-swing-states-uses-chinese-computer-parts-machines/</ref>]][[Coronavirus]] has turned the Democratic Party’s voter contact program, one operative said, into something more like a tech support operation than a traditional door-knocking effort.....[[Priorities USA]], the Democratic super PAC, is spending $24 million on voter mobilization, which includes vote-by-mail education. Fair Fight, a group founded by [[Stacey Abrams]], has rolled out voter protection programs in 17 states....

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on the USPS and on mail-voting is raising concern among voters, operatives say.

“We've seen such an increase from young people in terms of concern about their ballot casting,” said Jared DeLoof, the states director of [[NextGen America]], which targets younger voters. “They want to vote, they want to make sure that that vote is going to count.” [...]

Democrats believe they will also have to follow up with some voters after their ballot has been cast, in an effort to help them fix ballots that have been rejected for technical reasons. State rules vary widely on if or how voters can correct their ballots, and the time windows to do so can be short.

While Democratic campaigns and groups navigate the patchwork of state rules governing mail ballots to encourage turnout, Democratic election attorney Marc Elias is trying to change many of those rules.

This is the other half of the party’s vote-by-mail efforts: a sprawling legal effort that spans every battleground state and is costing tens of millions of dollars. Priorities USA, just one of Elias’ clients, has expanded its voting litigation budget to $32 million.
[[File:2020-11-04.jpg|left|300px|thumb|]]
“One of the features of vote by mail is that between the point that the voter cast the ballot and the point that the ballot is counted, several things have to go right,” Elias said in an interview. “One is that the ballot has to be received by the election officials in time. ... And the second is that the ballot needs to be verified and accepted.”

Elias, who was the lead attorney in former Sen. [[Al Franken]]’s (D-Minn.) 2008 recount victory and the general counsel for [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[John Kerry]]’s presidential campaigns, is pursuing what he calls “four pillars” of legal changes to election laws during coronavirus. The first, that mail ballots should include paid postage with them, has some cross-partisan support.

The other three do not, locking Elias in a wide-range legal fight with Republicans all over the country, including the Republican National Committee and its legal budget of at least $20 million. Those fights are over Elias’ push to mandate that states count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after the fact; overhauling signature matching laws, which Elias derides as based on pseudoscience; and allowing for third parties to collect and turn in voters’ sealed absentee ballots, which Democrats call “community collection” and Republicans largely deride as “[[ballot harvesting]].”

“One thing you do is you make sure that people whose ballot is being challenged based on signature matching, that the people that are doing that have been trained, are applying uniform non-discriminatory standards. And most importantly, the voter is notified and has an opportunity to cure,” Elias said of his legal strategy. (A cure process mandates that a state contacts voters whose ballots have been rejected to give them the ability to fix — or cure — their ballot.)

Several Democratic-backed lawsuits have also pushed to expand who can cast absentee ballots. In 44 states, any voter can, at a minimum, request an absentee ballot if they choose to do so, and some states have changed that requirement as a response to the pandemic. [...]

Republicans argue that allowing for outside parties to collect and deliver ballots could lead to coercion or fraud. [...]

Depending on how close the races for the White House and battleground Senate seats are, "we could be headed for a ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' situation in every battleground state, depending how close the results are."<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/21/democrats-vote-by-mail-plan-399671</ref>}}
The RNC and the Trump campaign pushed back against the Democrats’ assault on the integrity of elections. All across the country, Democrats tried to use coronavirus and the courts to legalize ballot harvesting, implement a nationwide mail-in ballot system, and eliminate nearly every safeguard in our elections.

One in five mail in ballots have been rejected in several 2020 elections. Nearly two-thirds (62%) say there is fraud in U.S. elections, and that fraud would concern them under Democrats’ nationwide mail-in ballot system. Americans overwhelmingly approve of the safeguards Democrats are suing to eliminate like signature matching (84%), voter identification (80%), and a ballot receipt deadline of election day (83%). Voters also oppose (67%) allowing campaign workers to collect mail-in ballots, also known as ballot harvesting.<ref>https://www.protectthevote.com/</ref>

===Biden-Burisma and Big Tech election interference===
[[File:Biden text.png|right|300px|thumb|Biden family text with Hunter telling his sister Naomi that thier "Pop" Joe Biden received 50% of the Burisma [[kickback]]s.<ref>https://thespectator.info/2020/10/15/unlike-pop-joe-biden-i-wont-make-you-give-me-half-of-your-salary-video/</ref>]]
[[File:Biden payments.PNG|right|300px|thumb|Documents show payments from Burisma to Hunter Biden.<ref>https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/06/breaking-source-reveals-hunter-biden-took-off-the-books-payments-from-burisma-aided-by-fbi-coverup/</ref><ref>https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/12/here-are-the-payments-to-hunter-biden-leaked-from-ukraine/</ref><ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hunter-biden-served-as-ceremonial-figure-on-burisma-board-for-80000-per-month/</ref><ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account</ref>]]
For first time in [[American history]] [[social media]] companies took [[direct action]] against a major U.S. publisher,<ref>https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-and-facebooks-assault-on-freedom-of-the-press_3540670.html</ref> ''[[The New York Post]]'' when it published a story on former VP Biden's [[collusion]] with [[Burisma]] executives and Ukrainian [[oligarch]]s.<ref>*https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ *https://youtu.be/r4Kcc7a114I *https://youtu.be/89ByR-vrnc4</ref> ''The Post'' is among the top five newspapers by circulation in the United States.

[[Big Tech]] giants Facebook and Twitter began interfering in the presidential election by blocking links to the article on the [[Biden-Burisma]] scandal.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/14/election-interference-facebook-suppressing-new-york-post-bombshell-story-of-damaging-hunter-biden-emails/</ref> Facebook and Twitter have many foreign stockholders.<ref>"Finalized January of 2011, the transaction included a $450 million investment from Goldman Sachs, $50 million from DST, and $1 billion from unnamed foreign investors." http://whoownsfacebook.com/#Goldman *https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-jack-dorsey-does/</ref> Former [[James Comey]] general counsel [[James A. Baker (DOJ)]], who was complicit in the [[Obamagate timeline|Obamagate]] and [[FISA abuse]] scandals, is [[Twitter]]'s lead counsel.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/06/16/twitter-hires-former-fbi-chief-counsel-as-deputy-lawyer/</ref>

One email from a Burisma executive reads,
{{quotebox-float|“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”}}
Former Vice President Biden has repeatedly [[lied]] about having any knowledge of his son Hunter's dealings with Burisma. Hunter Biden earned in excess of $3 million while serving on Burisma's board of directors during the [[Obama administration]]. The former vice president bragged to the [[Council on Foreign Relations]] that he threatened the President of Ukraine with withholding $1.8 Billion in foreign aid and loan guarantees, which the former vice president was in charge of, unless a [[prosecutor]] investigating Burisma [[kickback]]s to the Biden family was fired.

A firestorm erupted over Big Tech censorship of the news and calls for repealing their [[Section 230]] immunity. [[Youtube]] began banning dozens of top [[Conservative]] channels.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8844807/YouTube-BANS-QAnon-videos-crackdown-conspiracy-theories.html</ref> [[Twitter]] continued banning people who posted the [[Hunter Biden]] story.<ref>https://www.wnd.com/2020/10/twitter-now-banning-users-posting-ny-post-story-hunter-biden/</ref> Twitter banned White House Press Secretary [[Kayleigh McEnany]] for sharing the Hunter and Joe Biden corruption article.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/twitter-bans-white-house-press-secretary-for-sharing-hunter-and-joe-biden-corruption-article/</ref>[[Senate Judiciary Committee]] announced Twitter CEO [[Jack Dorsey]] will be [[subpoena]]ed over [[censorship]] of ''[[NY Post]]''.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/15/senate-judiciary-committee-will-subpoena-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-over-ny-post-censorship/</ref> [[Wikipedia]] editors censored the Hunter Biden Bombshell, and called the ''New York Post'' an ‘unreliable’ source.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/15/wikipedia-editors-censor-hunter-biden-bombshell-call-new-york-post-unreliable-source/</ref> Twitter locked the Trump Campaign account less than 3 weeks before the 2020 Presidential election.<ref>https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/politics/2020/10/15/twitter-locks-trump-campaign-account-less-than-3-weeks-before-presidential-election/</ref> Rep. [[Jim Jordan]] posted the [[Biden-Burisma]] story on a federal government website after Twitter censors House Judiciary GOP, at which point the link was promptly censored by Twitter.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/15/jim-jordan-posts-hunter-biden-burisma-story-twitter-censors-house-judiciary-gop/</ref> Twitter itself shut down completely.<ref>https://www.mediaite.com/online/twitters-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week-continues-massive-outage-right-before-presidential-town-halls/</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/Dupm8W0sF8c</ref> [[Google]] was reported to be meddling in [[U.S. Senate]] elections.<ref>https://patriotdailypress.org/2020/10/13/google-researcher-warns-google-may-be-shifting-power-to-flip-senate/</ref> A [[Rasmussen Poll]] shortly after found 61% of Likely U.S. Voters now think the impact on politics of social media like Facebook and Twitter has been bad for the nation.<ref>https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2020/61_think_social_media_bad_for_politics</ref>

Facebook and Twitter are no longer service carriers of electronic information, but rather now acting as publishers and broadcasters of news. Hence their immunity from broadcasting [[libel]]ous information on their platforms - such as accusations of President Trump being a Russian spy for example - should be revoked. ''Yahoo News!'' reported:
{{quotebox|Instead of simply asking pertinent questions, or debunking the [New York] Post’s reporting, a media blackout was initiated. A number of well-known journalists warned colleagues and their sizable social-media audiences not to share the story. By the afternoon, Twitter had joined Facebook in suppressing the article, not only barring its users from sharing it with followers, but barring them sharing it through direct messages as well. It locked the accounts of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, the Post, and many others for retweeting the story.

Twitter initially cited its “Hacked Materials Policy” and a “lack of authoritative reporting” as justification for censoring the Post, one of the most widely read papers in the nation. Though the reliability of the story is yet to be determined, Twitter has offered no evidence that any of the information was illegally obtained. No similar standard was applied when the New York Times published Trump’s tax returns, even though anyone who had legal access to them is likely to have broken the law in sharing them with the Times. Whatever the case, it’s all in the public record now.

A healthy democracy with a properly functioning and independent press would debate, investigate, and rigorously fact check new information. They wouldn’t work to squelch a story. It’s certainly not the job of giant tech companies who claim to function as neutral platforms to decide what news consumers can or can’t handle.

The most generous reading of Twitter and Facebook’s actions is that the rules are evolving, messy, and inadvertently unfair. A less generous — but more plausible — reading is that the tech giants single out specific stories damaging to progressives’ preferred presidential candidate.
It will backfire.

For one thing, it further damages the reputation of Big Tech. For another, it renders the industry more susceptible to a new regulatory regime already being championed by some in Congress. Mostly, however, it just makes the story they’re trying to suppress a far bigger deal.<ref>https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-facebook-shameful-repression-york-010644456.html</ref>}}
[[Glenn Greenwald]] writing in ''The Intercept'' remarked,
{{quotebox-float|"It has been astonishing to watch Democrats over the last twenty-four hours justify this censorship on the grounds that private [[corporation]]s are entitled to do whatever they want."}}
Google saw a spike in searches for ‘can I change my vote’ after the release of a Hunter Biden sex tape.<ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/google-searches-can-change-vote-spike-following-hunter-biden-sex-tape-release/</ref> The ''New York Post'', [[Gateway Pundit]]'', and Big League Politics all were placed on Twitter's suspension hit lit the final week before election day.<ref>https://bigleaguepolitics.com/big-league-politics-gateway-pundit-new-york-post-among-news-outlets-placed-on-twitter-suspension-weeks-before-election/</ref>

A study from the [[Media Research Center]] showed that Twitter and Facebook censored President Donald Trump and the president’s affiliated campaign accounts at least 65 times in 2019 ans 2020, while leaving Biden untouched.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-facebook-and-twitter-censored-trump-65-times-biden-zero/</ref>

===The laptop from hell: Hunter becomes the hunted===
[[File:Hunter Biden with meth pipe.jpeg|right|175px|thumb|Hunter Biden with [[methamphetamine|meth]] pipe.<ref>https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2020/10/14/cdmedia-reporting-since-nov-on-biden-crime-family-confirmed-leftist-media-enablers-attack/</ref>]]
The former vice president's son, Hunter, never visited Ukraine, did not speak Ukrainian, had no experience in the oil and gas industry, received over $50,000 a month in wire transfers from Burisma in which he paid half to his father,<ref>https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/10/15/howie-carr-hunter-biden-scandal-too-hot-for-alt-left-media/</ref> was dishonorably discharged from the [[Navy]] for [[cocaine]] [[addiction]], returned a rental car with crack and paraphernalia in it,<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/17/exclusive-2016-arizona-police-report-cocaine-pipe-found-in-car-rented-by-joe-bidens-son-hunter-biden-authorities-declined-to-prosecute/</ref> had a baby out of wedlock whom he refused to pay child support for until ordered by a court while he was having an affair with his [[widow]]ed sister-in-law.<ref>https://nypost.com/article/inside-the-life-of-hunter-biden-joe-bidens-scandal-plagued-son/</ref> Biden was paid $3.5 million from the wife of the [[Moscow]] mayor to launder $200 million in violation of the [[Magnitsky Act]].<ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/maybe-just-like-gettin-ass-whooped-black-trump-supporter-posts-epic-takedown-black-biden-supporters/</ref> Tens of thousands of dollars in payments to an [[Eastern Europe]]an prostitution and human tafficing ring were also discovered.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/09/23/senate-report-links-hunter-biden-to-human-trafficking-ring-n959766</ref> Professor [[Jonathan Turley]] noted the obvious facts:
{{quotebox-float|“The Bidens appear to have lied for years as a raw influence-peddling scheme worth millions stretched from China to Ukraine to Russia...Moreover, these countries likely have had the compromising information all along while the Bidens — and the [[media]] — were denying reports of illicit activities”.<ref>https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/521517-censoring-the-biden-story-how-social-media-becomes-state-media</ref>}}
Senate lawmakers formally requested the [[Department of Justice]] to appoint a special counsel to investigate foreign payments to the Biden family:
{{quotebox-float|"These alleged revelations raise serious questions about former Vice President Joe Biden's reported participation with his son's business, dealings, specifically whether the former vice president (1) received foreign monies during his tenure in the Obama administration and (2) if former Vice President Biden allowed his son to peddle access to his father with foreign business entities.

We request that the Department of Justice immediately appoint an independent, unbiased special counsel to investigate the issues that we have raised — as well as any corresponding legal or ethical issues that might be uncovered from the former vice president's 47 years in public office,<ref>https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/two-huge-new-developments-emerge-hunter-biden-laptop-saga</ref><ref>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-response-hunter-biden-emails-business-dealings</ref>}}
In a recorded call made sometime after Ye Jianming, Hunter's business partner, went missing in February 2018, Hunter is heard speaking in an agitated tone,
{{quotebox|"I get calls from my father to tell me that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is calling, but my old partner, Eric, who literally has done me harm for I don’t know how long, is the one taking the calls because my father will not stop sending the calls to Eric. I have another ''New York Times'' reporter calling about my representation of Patrick Ho – the f****** spy chief of China who started the company that my partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded and is now missing. The richest man in the world is missing who was my partner. He was missing since I last saw him in his $58 million apartment inside a $4 billion deal to build the f****** largest f***** LNG port in the world. And I am receiving calls from the Southern District of New York from the U.S. attorney himself. My best friend in business, Devon, has named me as a witness, without telling me, in a [[criminal]] case — and my father, without telling me."<ref>https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1321184369562759172</ref>}}
===Election rigging===
[[NBC News]] reported in December 2019,
{{quotebox|"Chinese manufacturers can be forced to cooperate with requests from Chinese intelligence officials to share any information about the technology and therefore pose a risk for U.S. companies, NBC News analyst Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant director of the FBI for counterintelligence, said. That could include intellectual property, such as source code, materials or blueprints. There is also the concern of machines shipped with undetected vulnerabilities or backdoors that could allow tampering."<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/chinese-parts-hidden-ownership-growing-scrutiny-inside-america-s-biggest-n1104516</ref>}}
In January 2020 [[Dominion Election Systems]] [[CEO]] John Poulos testified before Congress that Dominion machines are composed of parts manufactured in China from "screen on the interface down to the chip component level." Under questioning from Democrat Congresswoman [[Zoe Lofgren]], Poulos claimed, "there’s no option for manufacturing of those in the United States."<ref>https://thenationalpulse.com/news/dominion-uses-chinese-parts/</ref> The Chinese Communist Party endorsed Biden for president in the 2020 presidential election.<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-china-biden-russia-trump-election-2020-8</ref>

==Biden Putsch==

:{{See also|Biden Putsch}}
Marxist [[subversive]]s John Nagl and Paul Yingling, two veterans of U.S. military service, penned an open letter to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. [[Mark Milley]] chalk full of Democrat [[fake news]] talking points in support of the Marxist insurrection and advocating oath breaking.<ref>https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/08/12/john-nagl-and-paul-yingling-advocate-oath-breaking/</ref> Nagl and Yingling wrote:
[[File:Death-camps-trump-supporters.jpg|left|350px|thumb|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning [[leftist]] columnist Jerry Saltz, declared: “Republicanism is no longer a political problem; Republicanism is a social problem…It must be treated in the same way [[coronavirus]] is treated: it has to be isolated and snuffed-out by repressing it in about 70% of the general population."<ref>https://www.rt.com/usa/507445-republicans-coronavirus-colomnist-repressed/</ref> <ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/gop-rep-lee-zeldin-staffers-homes-and-cars-targeted-with-death-camps-for-trump-supporters-fliers/</ref>]]
{{quotebox-float|"America’s political and legal institutions have so atrophied that they are ill-prepared for this moment. Senate Republicans, already reduced to supplicant status, will remain silent and inert, as much to obscure their complicity as to retain their majority. The Democrat-led House of Representatives will certify the [[Electoral College]] results, which Mr. Trump will dismiss as fake news. The courts, flooded with cases from both Democrats and Mr. Trump’s legal team, will take months working through the docket, producing reasoned rulings that Trump will alternately appeal and ignore... At this moment of Constitutional crisis, only two options remain. Under the first, U.S. military forces escort the former president from the White House grounds. Trump’s little green men, so intimidating to lightly armed federal law enforcement agents, step aside and fade away, realizing they would not constitute a good morning’s work for a brigade of the 82nd Airborne. Under the second, the U.S. military remains inert while the Constitution dies. The succession of government is determined by extralegal violence between Trump’s private army and street protesters; Black Lives Matter Plaza becomes Tahrir Square."<ref>https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/all-enemies-foreign-and-domestic-open-letter-gen-milley/167625/</ref>}}
Gen. Milley rebuked the coup plotters saying,
{{quotebox-float|"In the event of a dispute over some aspects of the election, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. Military....I foresee no role for the U.S. Armed Forces in this process. ...I will not follow an unlawful order."<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joint-chiefs-head-says-military-wont-have-role-resolving-2020-election</ref>}}
On June 10, 2020 on the ''[[The Daily Show with Trevor Noah]]'' Democratic presidential nominee [[Joseph R. Biden]] implied that if [[Democratic Party|Democrat Party]] officials nationwide [[Voter fraud|stuffed the ballot box]] to defeat incumbent [[President Donald Trump]],<ref>https://conservativedailypost.com/how-dems-plan-to-use-ballot-harvesting-to-steal-2020-election/</ref> Biden was already in [[collusion]] with disgruntled retired [[military]] officials to stage an illegal [[coup]] to remove President Trump from office before a contested election could be resolved.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/06/11/biden-says-military-would-intervene-if-trump-refused-to-leave-wh/</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/dK3v8iUDTHc</ref><ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-victor-davis-hanson-podcast/episode-21-winding-the-coup-coup-clock/</ref> Biden said,
{{quotebox-float|“I promise you, I am absolutely convinced they will escort [Trump] from the [[White House]] with great dispatch.”}}

===Junta appointments===
*[[Russia collusion hoax]]er [[Jake Sullivan]] - [[national security advisor]]<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/24/bidens-pick-for-national-security-adviser-is-a-steele-dossier-truther/</ref>
*[[Hunter Biden]] contact [[Anthony Blinken]] - foreign ministry<ref>https://gellerreport.com/2020/11/biden-%f0%9f%92%80-transition-choice-for-sec-state-tony-blinken-conflict-of-interests-involving-china-ukraine-and-hunter-biden.html/</ref>
*[[PLA]] operative Alejandro Mayorkas - department of homeland security<ref>https://www.dickmorris.com/biden-nominee-for-homeland-security-secretary-helped-chinese-military-front-huawei-and-hillarys-brother-get-visas/</ref>
*Racist mayor [[Eric Garcetti]] - commissar of housing.<ref>https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/11/24/black-lives-matter-la-mayor-eric-garcetti-should-not-be-picked-for-biden-administration-position/</ref>
*[[jihad]]i Reema Dodin - deputy director Office of Legislative Affairs<ref>https://freebeacon.com/democrats/biden-taps-staffer-who-said-suicide-bombings-were-last-resort-for-palestinians/</ref>

==Racism==
[[File:Biden redskins.jpeg|right|275px|thumb|[[CNN]] airbrushed out the [[Washington Redskins]] logo from this 1970s photo of Joe Biden and son. The Washington NFL team dropped the name 'Redskins' in June 2020 because it was deemed "racist".<ref>https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/9/joe-bidens-son-has-redskins-logo-on-cap-wiped-from/</ref>]]
In addition to Biden's longstanding alliance with fellow Democrat segregationists in the U.S. Senate, Biden is known for a history of making racially insensitive remarks. Reportedly, Biden’s political approach to race has long been geared toward assuaging the racial anxieties of white voters. Biden exposed his racial insensitivity towards the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate and running mate, Barack Obama, when he declared, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." He later claimed, "Barack Hussein Obama is change enough for most people."<ref>Ryan Grim | ''The Intercept_'', Joe Biden’s Stunningly Racist Answer on the Legacy of Slavery Has Been Overlooked, https://theintercept.com/2019/09/13/joe-biden-democratic-debate-slavery/, September 13, 2019</ref> Biden called [[Confederacy|Confederate flag]] advocates "very fine people"<ref>https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-biden-praises-group-who-display-the-confederate-flag-as-fine-people-in-resurfaced-video</ref> and a disproportionate share of the U.S. military which are minorities as "stupid bastards"<ref>https://youtu.be/lfmy0FQRoNc</ref>

===You ain't Black===

:{{See also|2020 Antifa riots}}
Democrat presidential nominee former [[Vice President]] [[Joe Biden]] made a particularly offensive and egregious [[racist]] comment toward [[African American]]'s during a radio interview.<ref>https://youtu.be/GaTv5FQHqVw</ref> Biden's comments were an effort at [[voter intimidation]]. [[Black Entertainment Television]] (BET) co-founder Bob Johnson called him out saying in part,
{{quotebox-float|"This proves unequivocally that the Democratic nominee believes that black people owe him their vote without question; even though we as black people know it is exactly the opposite. He should spend the rest of his campaign apologizing to every black person he meets."<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/25/joe-biden-you-aint-black-racism-trump-column/5254434002/</ref>}}
[[File:You ain't Black.jpeg|right|275px|thumb|Biden was roundly criticized by Black leaders for his racist comments.<ref>https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/499214-african-american-figures-slam-biden-on-you-aint-black-comments</ref>]]
Biden won the Democrat presidential nomination when South Carolina Rep. [[James Clyburn]] endorsed him, and the dominos of the Democrat machine fell into place. In short choreographed order, the remaining white candidates, Amy Klobuchar, [[Pete Buttigieg]], Tom Steyer, [[Michael Bloomberg]] and a host of local officials began goosestepping in lockstep. Kamala Harris,<ref>https://archive.vn/2Smfh</ref> [[Cory Booker]], [[Julian Castro]], and [[Tulsi Gabbard]] had been driven out earlier in a rigged process that allowed rich white billionaires - Steyer and Bloomberg - to buy their way in once all the minority candidates were forced out.<ref>https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/02/michael-moore-goes-ballistic-on-dnc-for-changing-debate-rules-for-bloomberg/</ref> Clyborn admitted he cringed when he heard Biden's racist attack on Black people.<ref>https://youtu.be/HNgrTu1YhuU</ref>

Biden cynically tried to take advantage of George Floyd's killing, which occurred only days later, to repair his relations with Blacks by attacking the police and accusing them of [[systemic racism]]. Police groups and unions which Biden courted since the 1990s on behalf of the [[Clinton administration]] with the [[Biden Crime Bill]], mass incarceration, and effort to put 100,000 new cops on the street to deal with "Superpredators", responded by withdrawing their support.<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/04/police-groups-joe-biden-300222</ref>

When Biden supporters tore down statues of [[George Washington]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] because they were slave owners, Biden never condemned the violence and vandalism and accused President Trump of being America's first racist president. Biden conveniently overlooked the racism of President's [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Lyndon Johnson]], and a dozen other Democrat presidents who were slave owners. Charlemagne tha God responded that he wished Biden would just "shut the eff up forever."<ref>https://saraacarter.com/charlamagne-tha-god-says-biden-should-shut-the-eff-up-forever/</ref>

{{Anchor|Biden Amendment}}
===Biden Amendment repeal of portions of the Civil Rights Act===
[[File:Biden segregation.png 1718483346.png|left|350px|thumb|Biden called segregation "a matter of Black pride" and pushed for a [[Constitutional Amendment]] to outlaw Court ordered de-segregation.<ref name="politico.com">https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/joe-biden-integration-school-busing-120968_full.html</ref>]]
:{{See also|Segregation|Systemic racism}}
The debate over the crimes of the Democrats [[slave power]]<ref name="zerohedge.com">https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-20/biden-doubles-down-after-reminding-everyone-democrats-owned-slaves</ref> was reopened in 2019 while some far leftists were pushing for [[slave reparations]].<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/30/book-joe-biden-1973-lectured-cleveland-what-good-negro/</ref> During Sen. Biden's decades long collaboration with segregationist Senators, there is no record of Biden ever calling them "clown's, "racists", or telling them to "shut up". Contrarily, Biden had nothing but kind and loving words of praise at their retirements and funerals.

In 1972 Biden re-cycled the [[John_C._Calhoun#positive good|racist rhetoric of John C. Calhoun]], arguing that school segregation was a "positive good" for Blacks. Calhoun famously laid out his doctrine of separation of the races as a civilizing force among Blacks which became Democrat talking points before the [[Dred Scott]] decision, throughout the [[Civil War]], [[Reconstruction]], the [[Jim Crow]] era, and the [[New Deal]]. In a Democrat [[filibuster]] on the floor of the [[Senate]], Calhoun famously said:
{{quotebox-float|"I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good."}}
Biden resurrected the idea that segregation was "for their own good" and that Blacks were grateful for it.
{{Quotebox-float|“I think the concept of busing … that we are going to [[integrate]] people so that they all have the same access and they learn to grow up with one another and all the rest, is a rejection of the whole movement of black pride, a rejection of the entire black awareness concept, where black is beautiful, black culture should be studied; and the cultural awareness of the importance of their own identity, their own individuality.”<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/read-the-transcript-of-the-october-1975-npr-interview-with-sens-joe-biden-and-edward-brooke</ref>}}
[[File:Biden racial jungle.jpeg|right|300px|thumb|Biden: "My children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle."<ref>https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-racial-jungle-quote/</ref>]]
In the 21st century Biden tried to separate himself from his previous racist statements on school integration:
{{quotebox-float|"Poor kids are just as smart as white kids."}}
Biden led a coalition of segregationists that was opposed by Republican Sen. [[Edward Brooke]], the first [[African American]] senator elected since Democrats forced the end of [[Reconstruction]] after the [[American Civil War|Civil War]]. National Public Radio's David Ensor asked Biden, "What about a constitutional amendment? Isn’t that what you’re gonna have to end up supporting if you want to stop court ordered busing, too?" Biden responded,
{{Quotebox-float|"That would clearly do it. I’m hopeful, and I have — now that I have some sort of new allies in this area, it’s become respectable now for [[liberal]]s to at least say publicly what they’ve been saying in private, that busing doesn’t work. We are trying to figure out whether or not we can come up with an innovative piece of legislation which would limit the remedy, and I don’t — honestly don’t know whether we can come up with something constitutional. And if we can’t, I will not in an attempt to eliminate busing violate the Constitution. I won’t do that. The only way, if I’m gonna go at it, I’m gonna go at it through a Constitutional Amendment if it can’t be done through a piece of legislation."}}
Ensor reported that Biden proposed renewing segregation because busing "wasn't working" ("wasn't working" to the electoral advantage of Democrats and not necessarily to the cause of equal rights for Blacks), and Biden was afraid that older liberal colleagues were blind to how Black separatists felt about their children being bused to [[white]] schools.
{{Quotebox-float|"There are those of we [[social experiment|social planner]]s who think somehow that if we just [[subrogate]] man’s individual characteristics and traits by making sure that a presently heterogeneous society becomes a totally homogeneous society, that somehow we’re going to solve our social ills. Quite to the contrary."}}
Title VI of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]] prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.<ref>https://quizlet.com/45411923/ethical-and-legal-issues-2-flash-cards/</ref> Biden told the ''Philadelphia Enquirer'' on October 12, 1975:
{{quotebox-float|“Liberals have rejected common sense. Anybody who has studied the area knows that we don't have a workable rehabilitation program. Yet we continue to insist that the function of prison is to rehabilitate, not punish. I think the Democratic Party could stand a liberal [[George Wallace]] — someone who’s not afraid to stand up and offend people, someone who wouldn’t pander but would say what the American people know in their gut is right”<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/deep-personal-relationships-joe-bidens-six-segregationist-friends</ref>}}
George Wallace praised Biden as "one of the outstanding young politicians of America."<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/joe-biden-once-said-democrats-needed-a-liberal-george-wallace</ref> Wallace is famous for coining the slogan in a gubernatorial inaugural address,
{{quotebox-float|"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"<ref>https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1963-george-wallace-segregation-now-segregation-forever/</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/KQLapDdEKmY</ref>}}
The same year Biden authored an amendment to gut Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. ''[[Politico]]'' writes of the whole sordid affair, {{quotebox-float|Biden morphed into a leading anti-busing crusader—all the while continuing to insist that he supported the goal of school desegregation, he only opposed busing as the means to achieve that end. This stance, which many of Biden’s liberal and moderate colleagues also held, was clever but disingenuous. It enabled Biden to choose votes over principles, while acting as if he was not doing so....In a seminal moment, the Senate thus turned against desegregation. The Senate had supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act, [[1965 Voting Rights Act]] and 1968 Fair Housing Act....the Senate remained the last bastion for those who supported strong integration policies. Biden stormed that bastion...<ref name="politico.com">https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/joe-biden-integration-school-busing-120968_full.html</ref>}}
[[File:Biden 1975.jpeg|left|350px|thumb|“I think the Democratic Party could stand a liberal [[George Wallace]] — someone who’s not afraid to stand up and offend people, someone who wouldn’t pander but would say what the American people know in their gut is right” - Joe Biden]]
Sen. James Abourezk of [[South Dakota]] related how Biden reacted when Abrourezek tried to block the amendment:
{{quotebox-float|‘Abourezk, you **********, if I ever vote for another one of your bills, it'll be a cold day in hell.'

‘Calm down, Joe,' I told him, ‘You're eventually gonna thank me for doing this.'

‘Like hell I will you dirty *******.'

A few days later, Biden came into the scheduled committee meeting, this time with a broad, friendly grin aimed directly at me.

‘Jesus, Abourezk, you were right,' he said. ‘I am gonna thank you. You should see the Delaware newspapers—big front-page headlines saying, ‘Biden Battles Liberals in Washington.' He was unabashedly elated. ‘They love me back home, how did you know this would happen?'<ref>https://freebeacon.com/politics/biden-exploded-at-dem-colleague-over-busing-called-him-dirty-bastard/</ref>}}
''The New York Times'' published a lengthy story on Biden's advocacy of segregation. In a 1977 congressional hearing related to anti-desegregation orders, Biden emphasized,
{{quotebox-float|"Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle."<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/us/politics/biden-busing.html</ref>}}
Republican Sen. [[Edward Brooke]], the first black senator ever to be popularly elected, called Biden's amendment “the greatest symbolic defeat for [[civil rights]] since 1964.” Brooke accused Biden of leading an assault on integration.

Prof. Ronnie Dunn said opposition to busing was motivated by [[racism]] and that without the court-ordered policy Biden probably would not have become vice president in 2009. “What I find ironic is that [Biden] was the vice president under a president who, if it hadn’t been for the social interaction that occurred during the era of busing, I argue we likely would not have seen the election of Barack Obama." Dunn, an Urban Studies professor at Cleveland State University and author of the book ''Boycotts, Busing, & Beyond'', said Biden made the case in favor of maintaining segregation. "That was an argument against desegregation.” Dunn said Biden must address the issue if he runs for president. “People have to be held accountable."<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/joe-biden-embraced-segregation-in-1975-claiming-it-was-a-matter-of-black-pride</ref>

Biden's opposition to integration didn't stop there. ''HuffPo'' reported:
[[File:Annotation 2019-07-05 135356.png|right|350px|thumb|"That little girl was me." The Biden Amendment of 1975 to the [[Civil Rights Act|1965 Civil Rights Act]] restored funding for schools that practiced racial segregation. Democrat presidential contender Kamala Harris was ostracized and silenced after exposing Biden's corrupt and racist history.]]
{{quotebox-float|In 1977, two black men nominated for key Justice Department posts by [[President Jimmy Carter]] easily won approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. After confirmation by the full Senate, Drew Days III became the nation’s first black head of the department’s civil rights division and Wade McCree became the second black solicitor general. Only one member of the committee voted against them. It wasn’t segregationists [[Strom Thurmond]] (R-S.C.) or [[James Eastland]] (D-Miss.). It wasn’t even former [[Ku Klux Klan]] member [[Robert Byrd]] (D-W.Va.). The lone Judiciary Committee vote against the two men was Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).<ref>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-busing-nominees_n_5ca3c03de4b03174b92904f7</ref>}}
In 1981 Biden said in a Senate hearing, “sometimes even [[George Wallace]] is right about some things.” Wallace is famous for saying in 1963, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/09/biden-sometimes-even-george-wallace-is-right/</ref> Biden read the "N" word into the Congressional Record during an open hearing in 1986.<ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/exclusive-newly-uncovered-transcripts-reveal-joe-biden-said-n-word-public-senate-hearing-1986/</ref> In a farewell address to retiring Democrat segregationist Sen. [[John Stennis]], Biden said:
{{quotebox-float|"To think that I would be one day on the floor of the United States Senate, being paid such accolades by such a man of character and courage as John Stennis is beyond my wildest dreams. And I mean that sincerely."<ref>https://youtu.be/9X6Y2CLqgDM</ref>}}
When Biden announced his candidacy ''Politico'' attempted to poo-poo and explain away Biden and liberal Democrat racism with a back-handed slap at [[school vouchers]] for minority students, which liberal elites have strenuously opposed ever since the Biden Amendment passed:
{{quotebox-float|School desegregation, as part of a broader suite of civil rights reforms, was once as a vital component of the Democratic Party platform. Yet since the 1970s, Democrats, in the face of concerted white backlash, have largely accommodated themselves to increasing segregation in public schools across the nation. Party leaders, even the most progressive among them, rarely propose serious solutions to this vexing problem. A sincere critique of Biden’s busing record would require a broader reckoning of the Democratic Party’s—and by extension the nation’s—abandonment of this central goal of the [[civil rights movement]]. And it’s hard to see that happening anytime soon.<ref>https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/05/joe-biden-busing-problem-226791</ref>}}
Sen. [[Cory Booker]] of [[New Jersey]] condemned the [[2020 Democrat primary]] frontrunner at the [[Juneteenth]] annual commemoration of [[Republican]] [[Abraham Lincoln]] ending [[slavery]] in the United States.
{{quotebox-float|You don’t joke about calling black men 'boys'...frankly, I’m disappointed that he hasn’t issued an immediate apology for the pain his words are dredging up for many Americans. He should.<ref name="zerohedge.com">https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-20/biden-doubles-down-after-reminding-everyone-democrats-owned-slaves</ref>}}

===Superpredators===
[[File:Joe Biden.jpg|250px|right|thumb|Biden [[collude]]d with segregationists to undermine the Supreme Court decision of ''Brown vs. Board''.]]
In a 1993 Senate floor speech, Biden warned of "predators on our streets" who were "beyond the pale" and said they must be cordoned off from the rest of society because the justice system did not know how to rehabilitate them. Biden described a {{quotebox-float|"cadre of young people, tens of thousands of them, born out of wedlock, without parents, without supervision, without any structure, without any conscience developing because they literally ... because they literally have not been socialized, they literally have not had an opportunity."}}
Biden went on in the same breath, {{quotebox-float|"It doesn't matter whether or not the person that is accosting your son or daughter or my son or daughter, my wife, your husband, my mother, your parents, it doesn't matter whether or not they were deprived as a youth. It doesn't matter whether or not they had no background that enabled them to become socialized into the fabric of society. It doesn't matter whether or not they're the victims of society. The end result is they're about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons."}}
Biden said, that he didn't care "why someone is a malefactor in society" and that criminals needed to be "away from my mother, your husband, our families." Biden added "we should focus on them now" because "if we don't, they will, or a portion of them, will become the predators 15 years from now."

Biden's comments echoed first lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s inflammatory statement about "Superpredators" with "no conscience, no empathy" and "we need to bring them to heel."

===Biden Crime Bill===
:{{Main article|The New Jim Crow}}
Biden was a staunch opponent of school desegregation in the 1970s and leading crusader for mass incarceration in the 1980s and 1990s. Biden described [[African American]] felons in the aftermath of the Central Park 5 jogger case as 'predators' too [[sociopath]]ic to rehabilitate,<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/politics/biden-1993-speech-predators/index.html</ref> and [[white supremacist]] senators as his friends.

Biden boasts as one of his greatest legislative achievements passage of the 1994 Crime bill which locked up 10% of the Black adult male population of the United States.<ref>http://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/incarceration_rates_growth_causes/</ref>

When [[President George H.W. Bush]] asked for a record increase in funding to fight the [[War on Drugs]], Biden told a TV interviewer {{Quotebox|"In a nutshell, the President's plan does not include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, enough prosecutors to convict them, enough judges to sentence them or enough prison cells to put them away for a long time."<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-06/news/mn-1646_1_drug-war</ref><ref>http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/first-step-act-skepticism.html</ref>}} [[File:1994 Superpredator Act.jpg|left|350px|thumb|The Superpredator Act of 1994. Feinstein, Kerry and Biden are clearly visible with President Clinton. The bill is known for its sentencing disparities which led to mass incarceration of Blacks.<ref>https://fair.org/home/senate-crime-bill-unscrutinized-by-the-press/</ref>]] Biden, [[Ted Kennedy]], and [[Strom Thurmond]] worked on proposals that raised maximum penalties, removed a directive requiring the US Sentencing Commission to take into account prison capacity, and created the cabinet-level “drug czar” position. In 1984, they passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which, among other things, abolished [[parole]], imposed a less generous cap on “good time” sentence reductions, and allowed the Sentencing Commission to issue more punitive guidelines.

Biden bragged on the Senate floor that it was under his and Thurmond's leadership that Congress passed a law sending anyone caught with a rock of cocaine the size of a quarter to jail for a minimum of five years - the notoriously racist hundred-to-one sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. In the same speech Biden took credit for [[civil asset forfeiture]] and seizure laws, and demanded to know why [[Papa Bush]] hadn't sentenced more drug dealers to life in prison or exercise the [[death penalty]] once Congress had given him that power.<ref name="c-span.org"/>

Biden's version of a new crime bill added more than forty crimes that would be eligible for the [[death penalty]]. Biden boasted “we do everything but hang people for jaywalking.”<ref name="books.google.com"/> The [[NAACP]] and other groups lobbied against the bill.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/27/us/civil-libertarians-go-after-crime-bills.html</ref> Although the 1991 crime bill was defeated by Republicans, the 1994 Biden/Clinton crime bill was passed.<ref>''[https://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT142&dq=biden%20strongly%20believes%20the%20administration%20needs%20to%20seize%20control%20of%20the%20issue%20by%20upping%20the%20ante&pg=PT142#v=onepage&q=biden%20strongly%20believes%20the%20administration%20needs%20to%20seize%20control%20of%20the%20issue%20by%20upping%20the%20ante&f=false The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America]'', Naomi Murakawa.</ref>

By 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. [[Human Rights Watch]] reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level they had been under [[Ronald Reagan]].<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote], Michelle Alexander, ''The Nation'', February 10, 2016</ref> Biden's "social planning" had proven effective.

In May 2019 journalist and historian Shaun King observed, {{Quotebox|I’ve heard a very dangerous lie being told about how the systems of mass incarceration were built in this nation. I didn’t expect to have to respond this way because I didn’t expect Joe Biden to lie about the 1994 Crime Bill. He wrote it. He fought for it. And the results were devastating. Every single expert on this topic agrees. This week Joe Biden took the stance that not only is he not sorry for the Crime Bill, but that it didn’t even increase mass incarceration. And it’s shameful because either he’s willfully lying, which is horrible, or he’s just plain ignorant about the true impact of the bill, which is also horrible. Either way, I have a major problem with it because these laws are still in effect and they are doing damage in our communities every single day, 24 hours a day.<ref>https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/688203931610804/</ref>}}
The Leftist ''Jacobin'' magazine summed up Biden's record:
{{Quotebox-float|"It’s not as if Biden didn’t know what he was doing.... He just didn’t care. Biden had made a calculated decision that the elections he would win were worth the damage he inflicted.... But even if Biden has subsequently learned the error of his ways, the rank cynicism and callousness involved in his two-decade-long championing of carceral policies should be more than enough to give anyone pause about his qualities as a leader, let alone a [[progressive]] one."<ref>https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/biden-crime-mass-incarceration-police-prisons</ref>}}

===Mass incarceration===
:{{See also|War on Drugs}}
Sen. [[Cory Booker]] told the NAACP convention in [[Detroit]] in response to another so-called "criminal justice reform" proposal by Biden: {{quotebox-float|For a guy who helped to be an architect of mass incarceration, this in an inadequate solution to what is a raging crisis in our country.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/24/cory-booker-labels-joe-biden-architect-mass-incarceration/</ref>}}
Biden now advocates for a man sentenced to prison to choose to be incarcerated in a women's prison.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0ovc0BAUYo&feature=youtu.be</ref>

===Anita Hill hearings===
Biden as chair of the Judiciary Committee, called for extended hearings to delay a vote on Thomas and accommodate her last-minute allegations with televised hearings that traumatized the country. Biden told Sen. [[Arlen Specter]] that “It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, [Hill] was lying” about the central theme of her testimony. Biden used [[homophobia]], allegations by a Republican Senator that Anita Hill had "certain proclivities" to discredit her testimony, to attack Hill's critics while at the same time fight the nomination of an [[uppity]] Black. Biden has been widely criticized for his [[racist]], [[sexist]], and [[bigot]]ted handling of the hearings.<ref>https://www.essence.com/news/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill-comment-2020-presidential-run/</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/sM19YOqs7hU</ref>

Thomas said he would rather have been the victim of an assassin's bullet than suffer what the hearings did to him.<ref>http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974074,00.html</ref> [[Democrat]]s were outraged that a [[Republican]] president would nominate a [[conservative]] [[African-American]] role model for Black youths to the Supreme Court.

Hill described her private conversation with Joe Biden shortly before he entered the [[2020 presidential election]] as "deeply unsatisfying."<ref>https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/anita-hill-says-recent-conversation-with-joe-biden-was-deeply-unsatisfying</ref>

===Flagship of the Confederacy===
:{{See also|Southern Manifesto}}
The Southern Manifesto was a document written after the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling [[Brown v. Board of Education]], which integrated public schools. It was drawn up by legislators in the [[United States Congress]] opposed to racial integration in public places. It was signed by politicians from the former [[Confederate States of America|Confederate States]]. All but twenty-eight of the 138 southern Democrat members of Congress signed the Manifesto, including 19 of the Majority Democrat Senators.<ref>https://d1lexza0zk46za.cloudfront.net/history/am-docs/southern-manifesto.pdf</ref>

The Southern Manifesto was signed on a large mahogany conference table in Sen. [[John Stennis]]' office which Stennis used as his desk and referred to as "the flagship of the [[Confederacy]]." The table was used by segregationist and co0signer of the Southen Manifesto before, Sen. [[Richard Russell]] before his retirement. When Stennis retired in 1988, Biden took over Stennis' office, including the conference table. When Biden was elected vice president in 2008, Biden had the conference table moved into the vice president's residence.

===Xenophobia===
Biden told an audience in 2006,
[[File:Riden with biden.png|right|350px|thumb|[[Richard Spencer]] officially endorsed Joe Biden. Spencer organized the 2015 [[Neo-Nazi]] Charlottesville March and is one of the "fine people" Biden claims Trump praised.<ref>https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/the-charlottesville-lie/698538344061850/</ref>]]
{{quotebox-float|"the country that isn't an erstwhile democracy, where they have the greatest disparity, and it's one of the wealthiest countries in the hemisphere. And because of a corrupt system that exists in [[Mexico]], there is the 1% of the population at the top, a very small little [[middle class]], and the rest in abject poverty.

Folks, I voted for a fence. I voted and, unlike most Democrats - some of you won't like it - I voted for 700 miles of fence. Let me tell you, we can build a fence 40 stories high - unless we change the dynamic in Mexico, and you will you like this - and punish American employers who knowingly violate the law when in fact they hire illegals. Unless you do those two things, all the rest is window dressing. Now I know I'm not supposed to say it that bluntly. But they are facts. They are the facts.

And so, everything else we do is in between here, everything else we do is at the margin. The reason why I thought, parenthetically, why I believe the fence is needed is not really related to immigration as much as drugs. I'm the guy who wrote the national crime bill. I'm the guy that wrote the national drug trafficing. I'm the guy who wrote the law that set up a drug czar. Let me tell you something, folks. People are driving across that border with tons, tons, hear me, tons, of everything from by products for [[methamphetamine]], to [[cocaine]], to [[heroin]]. It's all coming up through corrupt Mexico.

So I would have, as they say in the southern part of my state, I had an altar call. I had a come to the Lord meeting. You think I'm joking? I'm not joking. Maybe you know about me. I've been doing this a long time. I've known every single major world leader in every country for the past 20 years. And I know a lot of them well...don't tell me, in Mexico, you expect to get the same kind of treatment that we give other democracies, and then you don't act in a democratic way. Not on my watch., Not on my watch.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6wdwkaWGA</ref>}}

==Mental health==
Biden apparently has [[Dementia]].<ref>[https://redstate.com/bonchie/2020/10/12/watch-joe-bidens-probable-dementia-was-on-full-display-today-n262206 Watch: Joe Biden's Probable Dementia Was on Full Display Today]</ref> Biden has symptoms of dementia like forgetting basic facts of his own, like forgetting how many grandchildren he has,<ref>[https://redstate.com/bonchie/2020/08/17/joe-biden-forgets-how-many-grand-children-he-has-again-n251481 Joe Biden Forgets How Many Grandchildren He Has...Again]</ref> thinking that he run for senate not US presidency,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-repeats-gaffe-that-hes-running-for-the-senate-appears-to-not-remember-mitt-romneys-name Biden repeats gaffe that he's running 'for the Senate,' appears to not remember Mitt Romney's name]</ref> forgetting that he is run against president Trump not George Bush,<ref>[https://www.toddstarnes.com/politics/biden-appears-to-forget-trumps-name-tells-reporter-hes-running-against-a-guy-named-george/ Biden Appears to Forget Trump’s Name, Tells Reporter He’s Running Against a Guy Named “George”]</ref> mistaking between his wife and his sister,<ref>[https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/joe-biden-mistakes-his-wife-his-sister Joe Biden Mistakes His Wife for His Sister]</ref> and even forgetting where he is!!<ref>[https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-goes-blank-stare-forgetting-tries-fails-pass-off-joke/ Biden Goes Into Blank Stare After Forgetting Where He Is, Tries and Fails To Pass It Off as Joke]</ref> despite all this symptoms, Democrats deny anything about Bidens dementia, and let someone mentally disqualified to be president of United States.<ref>[https://thedailycoin.org/2020/08/09/democrats-endgame-is-beyond-strange-with-dementia-biden-in-severe-mental-decline-the-plan-is-to-get-him-elected-but-never-let-him-assume-the-duties-of-president/ Democrat’s Endgame Is Beyond Strange: With Dementia-Biden In Severe Mental Decline, The Plan Is To Get Him Elected But Never Let Him Assume The Duties Of President]</ref>

==Positions==
Joe Biden's alleged State Department transition team contains several consultants and lobbyists from Albright Stonebridge Group, a consulting firm with extensive links to the Chinese Communist Party.<ref>https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/biden-un-state-picks-are-ccp-consultants/</ref>

===Antifa===
Biden refused to denounce terrorist Anarcho-coummunist group of [[Antifa]] during the first debate with president Donald Trump. he claimed they are just an idea not organization. he pretend that [[FBI]] Bureau’s director Chris Wray told lawmakers that Antifa is an ideology not terrorist group, but the fact this is not what Wray said, Wray said: “any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists,” which included individuals who identity with Antifa.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-says-antifa-is-an-idea-not-an-organization-during-presidential-debate/ Biden Says Antifa Is ‘An Idea, Not An Organization’ during Presidential Debate]</ref> it seem Biden and Antifa have some relations, when someone press Antifa.com, Biden election page will appear.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHDVYKgLODY</ref>

===Fracking===
During Democratic primarily elections stated that he will end [[Fracking|fracking]] several times.<ref>[https://www.atr.org/biden-yes-we-should-end-fracking?amp Biden: "Yes" We Should End Fracking]</ref><ref>[https://www.newsweek.com/biden-claimed-he-never-wanted-ban-fracking-he-did-1541552 Biden Claimed He Never Wanted to Ban Fracking. He Did]</ref> after his winning primarily elections he pretend that he is never said that he will not end fracking to his supporters in [[Pennsylvania]], and he declined to comment on ending fracking. [[Washington Post]] admit that Biden will lose his popularity in Pennsylvania because of his comments on fracking.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-fracking-unions-pennsylvania/2020/10/22/447d31de-12cf-11eb-ad6f-36c93e6e94fb_story.html Biden's fracking comments could cost him Pennsylvania ...]</ref>

===Police===
Biden flip-flops on defunding police. He changed his positions three times on defunding police.<ref>https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2020/08/26/joe-biden-flips-defund-police-how-can-we-trust-him/3424969001/</ref> in 8 July 2020 he agree on defunding some level in police. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppoUCQLSXFE</ref> in the first presidential debate Biden accuse police and calling them as ‘systemic racists’. <ref>https://www.teletrader.com/biden-systemic-racism-in-us-present-beyond-police/news/details/52383496?internal=1&ts=1604959273788&culture=de-CH</ref>

===Supreme court===
Biden wants to violate the Constitution by expanding Supreme court members.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-packing.html</ref> At presidential debate, Biden refused to confirm that.<ref> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/22/joe-biden-court-packing-judicial-reforms-commission-431157</ref>

===Illegal Immigration===
Biden didn’t consider Illegal immigrants as illegals, he call them instead as undocumented immigrants. <ref> https://joebiden.com/immigration/</ref> in presidential debate he admit that he will give citizenship to 11 million illegal immigrants. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbzEuEr7Fio</ref> Biden stated that he want to reform ICE policies, without saying which of this policies want to reform. <ref> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-knocks-left-wing-of-democratic-party-we-shouldnt-abolish-ice</ref>

===Gun rights===
Biden plan to control people's right to own guns, for example, banning semi-automatic firearms.<ref>https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/#</ref> he pretend that his plan did not violate the [[Second Amendment]].<ref>[https://www.nraila.org/articles/20200921/joe-biden-told-voters-the-second-amendment-does-not-protect-an-individual-right Joe Biden Told Voters the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right]</ref> Biden has no tolerance for anyone who oppose his anti-gun campaign, in 10 March 2020 he threatened to fight a civilian worker in Detroit, he disrespected him by calling him 'Full of Sh*t' because he mentioned Joe's past statements.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k2UeoY4uyU</ref>

===Islam===
Biden planed to bring hundreds of thousands of Muslims from radical countries.<ref>[https://www.newsweek.com/dncs-deepening-embrace-radical-islamists-opinion-1527239 The DNC's Deepening Embrace of Radical Islamists | Opinion]</ref> Biden was criticized when talking to his fellow Muslims, He promised to Muslims to let kids learn Sharia law in schools.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkqSZp6nkc Why Joe Biden Wants to Teach Your Kids Islam]</ref> To convince Muslims to vote for him he used one of the most radical hadiths: whoever sees evil let him change by his hand, if he cannot then with his tongue, if he cannot then with his heart (by hating), and that's the weakest faith. this is same hadith which used by the [[September 11, 2001 attack]] perpetrators.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOhjQ9qoVJw Joe Biden Accidentally Calls for Jihad against America]</ref>

===Abortion===
Biden has a far left position on [[abortion]], he said that he will support abortion in all circumstances including [[Late-term abortion|late term abortion]].<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/supporting-roe-means-supporting-abortion-until-birth/ Supporting Roe Means Supporting Abortion until Birth]</ref> he also said that he will stop any state from preventing abortion.<ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/joe-biden-i-support-abortion-under-any-circumstance Joe Biden: I support abortion ‘under any circumstance’]</ref>

===TPP===
Biden planed for return to [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]], despite it damages on US economy.<ref>[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/09/business/us-return-tpp-joe-biden/ Prospects dim for early U.S. return to TPP despite Biden win]</ref> he want to abolish all tariffs which created by president Trump.<ref>[https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/prospects-for-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-trade-deal-under-a-biden-presidency/ Prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal under a Biden Presidency]</ref>

===China===
Biden has good relations with communist government of China. China was one of first countries which welcomed media declaration of Biden winning. vice foreign minister He Yafei said: despite differences in political ideology, there could still be opportunities for long-term cooperation. “Multilateralism, I will say, is very much needed at this critical moment,” he said. “For China, the US and the EU, all of us should rethink who we are and what roles we can play in the future.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3109496/us-china-relations-trump-divisions-could-haunt-biden US-China relations: Trump divisions could haunt Biden presidency]</ref>

===North Korea===
Biden criticized president Trump for his meeting with North Korea president [[Kim Jong-un]], despite this meeting avoid nuclear war. Biden and Obama failed to shutdown Nuclear program of North Korea, they let North Korea to get Nuclear power, and now Biden pretend that his policy will force North Korea to shutdown Nuclear power, without clarifying what this policy.<ref>[https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-09-17/how-would-team-biden-handle-showdown-north-korea How would Team Biden handle a showdown with North Korea?]</ref>

===Iran===
In contradiction on his policy with North Korea, Biden will let Iran first country of terrorism sponsoring to get Nuclear power. Biden also criticized president Trump for quick act to assassinate terrorist and war criminal [[Qasem Soleimani]].<ref>[https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-01-14/biden-trump-flat-out-lied-about-soleimani-dangers Biden: Trump 'Flat-Out Lied' About Soleimani Dangers ..]</ref> Biden planned to rejoin to Iranian Nuclear deal, he will also canceled all sanctions on Iranian regime and let them to get money to support their terrorist militias.<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-will-seek-to-reenter-iran-nuclear-deal-within-months-aide-says/ Biden will seek to reenter Iran nuclear deal within months, former aide says]</ref> Mullahs government of Iran like China was one of first countries which welcomed media declaration of Biden winning.<ref>[https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/america-votes/iran-s-president-calls-on-biden-to-return-to-nuclear-deal-1.5179848 Iran's president calls on Biden to return to nuclear deal]</ref>

===Russia===
Biden portrays his policy as being more tough against Russia than [[President Trump]]'s has been,<ref>[https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/522773-kremlin-biden-encouraging-hatred-of-russia Kremlin: Biden encouraging hatred of Russia]</ref> although his policy under the [[Obama administration]] let Russia expand into Crimea and the [[Middle East]].

==Early life and career==
:{{See also|Joe Biden early life and career}}

==See also==
*[[Ukrainian collusion timeline]]
*[[Race baiting]]

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

==External links==
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm Biden On the Issues]
*[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000444/ Voting Record], [[Washington Post]]
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000444, Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[https://youtu.be/V0WA590kY64 Hilarious Proof Joe Biden is a Racist; Charlamagne the God is a Liar & will Tim Scott be President], LONNELHARRISLIVE 2, May 28, 2020, YouTube,com.
*[http://www.joebiden.com/ Presidential Race Site]
*[https://twitter.com/todosconbiden/status/1187125647644286976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Todos Con Biden]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM8uLOOUz3I Joe Biden - Here's the Deal]
*[https://youtu.be/ra6u39U1wZ4 Biden Islamic Outreach Video]
*[https://youtu.be/JRmlcEBAiIs RIDING THE DRAGON: The Bidens' Chinese Secrets (Full Documentary)], Peter Schweizer, BlazeTV, Sep 4, 2020.
{{USVicePresidents}}{{liberalism}}{{Deep State}}{{communism}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Biden, Joseph}}
[[Category:Joe Biden]][[Category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Establishment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Catholic Politicians]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Anti-Constitutionalists]]
[[Category:Blame America Crowd]]
[[Category:Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax]]
[[Category:Hillary Clinton email scandal]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2020]][[Category:United States Political Scandals]][[Category:Biden Putsch]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Leftists]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Racism]][[Category:Bigotry]]
[[Category:Worst Liberal Politicians]]
[[Category:1970s]]
[[Category:1980s]]
[[Category:1990s]]
[[Category:2000s]]
[[Category:2010s]]
[[Category:2020s]]