Talk:Main Page/Archive index/160

As anyone who has watched the news media lately knows, for liberals gun massacres and talk of "gun control," by which they mean getting back at the NRA, go together like peanut butter and jelly. After the Orlando massacre, a lot of liberals reacted along the lines of, "If only the shooter was white, we could use this incident to get gun control." Perhaps Paddock thought this way as well. Mark Steyn elaborates. The news reports make Paddock sound apolitical, which makes this theory less likely. But if he could have a secret life as a gun enthusiast, he could have a political life we don't know about as well. As Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." In collecting his arsenal, Paddock followed the law scrupulously. As a wealthy man with a pilot's license and private planes, he presumably had access to the black market. Liberals are big believers in "blowback." It wouldn't be the first time they tried to turn the concept around and make it work for them. The Obama administration sold guns to Mexican drug dealers in "Fast and Furious." Why? Pointing out how many of the guns used by criminals in Mexico were of U.S. origin was one of Obama's favorite gun control talking points. PeterKa (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2017 (EDT)

I was hoping the note Paddock left in his room would shed light on his motives. But it turns out to be filled with calculations concerning what firing angles to use.[1] Gun control is one of the few motives where is it vitally important that the motive be concealed. If it was about gun control, that would suggest the gambling was less an addiction than a way to get big shot treatment from the casino. PeterKa (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

The Huffington Post also has an article on gun control as a possible motive. This story notes that Paddock had far more guns that he needed to commit the crime. They were all bought legally, as if he was making a point about what was possible while staying within law: "Where Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock bought his guns; it was all legal." In short, gun control has become a death cult with worshipers seeking martyrdom. PeterKa (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Addicted to gambling?

As far as the gambling addiction theory goes, casino owner Steve Wynn claims that the casino had no reason to think of Paddock as a problem gambler: “He's been staying in Las Vegas since ‘06. So you know, we're talking about 11 years with his girlfriend or at least in recent years, frequent visitor, once or twice a month, to this hotel and others. The most vanilla profile one could possibly imagine. A modest gambler at least by our standards, you know, nothing serious, paid promptly, never owed any money anywhere in Las Vegas. He didn't fit the profile of a problem or compulsive gambler.”[2] They didn't give him the best suite in the hotel because he was a small timer, so this may be overstating the case. Can a "modest gambler" really bring in dozens of guns, store them in his room for a week, and demand not to be disturbed? Let's hope not. PeterKa (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

This story in the LA Times explains Paddock's gambling habits. At one point, he had a method of actually making money at video poker. The casinos readjusted the odds a year or so later. Mostly, he was a "comp hustler." That is to say, he tried to break even as a big money gambler while earning freebies from the casino. PeterKa (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

It's sad to see the beautiful French language contaminated this way: Sortez avec un Sugar Daddy. See "Students with sugar daddies: ‘It was a money-making scheme’." PeterKa (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Why is gun control the never ending war zone of American politics? Because it is a reliable source of financing for politicians and consultants on both sides. See "Democrats More Interested In Politicizing Gun Violence Than Stopping It." The media's hysteria on this issue inspired Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, and possibly the Las Vegas shooting as well. Paddock bought several weapons in California, where everything the gun control lobby wants is already law. As long as Jimmy Kimmel and other liberal heroes retain armed guards, it's all just posturing.[3] PeterKa (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Dems think they will ultimately prevail on the gun control issue, in order to prevail on other issues as a result. When Australia enacted gun control after a mass shooting, liberals were then able to pass other parts of the agenda. Gun control causes an entire country to move leftward politically, as citizens become more dependent on the state.

However, Dems fail to realize that they more they try for gun control, the more Dems will continue to lose elections. Some say that Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the gun control issue, observing that he failed to carry his own home state of pro-Second Amendment Tennessee, which has more Electoral College votes than the margin of his defeat.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Please see: Stephen Paddock was a power hungry, liberal, beta male whose anger exploded.

Question: Why are so many nonreligious, effete, liberal men so angry? See also: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? and Richard Dawkins and anger and Atheism and anger

We know that he was a nonreligious loner. On top of this, he was a liberal beta male who by definition had no followers. So a conspiracy theory is pretty much ruled out.Conservative (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Hans Küng is often at odds with some in the Catholic hierarchy, if you believe some of the accounts on the internet, but he came up with the observation that the secular state is always having to take recourse to what he called "substitute messiahs".

Grief counsellors are called in the next day after a violent or tragic event at schools, when it may take more than many days and among loved ones rather than a stranger to work through grief. Yet they are called in anyway, because liberals need to compensate for not valuing family life because the family gets in the way of too many of their goals.

Likewise with the "substitute messiah" of gun control. Careful observers have been watching Venezuela these recent months where previous acts of gun control, however well-meaning, by the socialist government which could, in ordinary times, among a responsible class of people, prevent the escalation of violence, in a time of economic and political turmoil where those ordinary times are gone, at best simply benefit the socialist party in power as they spread the confiscated firearms to their own party and turn government into nothing better than coercion.VargasMilan (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

The new article List of atheist shooters and serial killers is pretty popular right now. It already has over 4,400 page views.Conservative (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Don't forget to raise your American flag today; this marks the 525th anniversary of the discovery of America, although the saddest I can remember in a long while. VargasMilan (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

So Pence walking out in response to kneeling NFL idiots is now the media's idea of a scandal. The argument here is that the vice president flew to the game using taxpayer-funded Air Force Two simply to perform a "campaign stunt." Where was this accountant mindset when Obama was president? Obama routinely used Air Force One to go to campaign events, both his own and Hillary's. The campaigns do reimburse the Air Force for this, at least in a token way. The amount they pay reflects the amount an equivalent charter flight would cost. This is, of course, only a tiny fraction of the overall cost of a presidential visit. NPR crunches the numbers. PeterKa (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Good points. Classic liberal logic: if Pence had stayed to watch the game, then liberals would not be complaining about the cost. What if Pence had left at halftime? Would liberals complain about that?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

If standing up for our national symbols isn't official vice presidential business, what is? The amount these visits cost is absurd, but that's not Pence's fault. PeterKa (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Please read the following articles:

• French researcher Charles Gave says Muslims to be majority in Europe within two generations

• Europe: The Great White Death?

• France's Muslim Demographic Future

• In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord

• Immigrant evangelical churches are a fast growing movement in France.

• Nearly half of young French voters backed Marine Le Pen, projections suggest

• Angela Merkel ‘will become a lame duck very quickly’ as she polls worse than Theresa May

• East Asia and global desecularization

Germany/France are two main pillars upon which Western, secular, liberalism rests now. If Gave is roughly correct (he did have a mathematical error as per the latter link given above), then an anti-atheism, anti-homosexuality, ant-feminism Muslim population may strike a huge blow against secular leftism much earlier than I thought.

On top of this, Merkel appears to be much weaker now and the French youth are becoming more right-wing in recent years.

I do know that Muslims are not assimilating and they tend to live in isolated ghettos in France (See: European desecularization in the 21st century).

My guess is that the accuracy of Gave's calculation rests on whether or not the fertility rate of French Muslims will about stay the same or significantly drop in the next 40 years.

After all is said and done, secular leftism appears to be between a quickly growing hammer of right-wing populism and an anvil of Muslim/Christian evangelicalism.

Secular leftism is collapsing much faster than I anticipated. However, I did foresee an acceleration of desecularization happening in the world so I was not completely caught off guard (see: Acceleration of 21st century desecularization). Conservative (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Conservapedia proven right™! VargasMilan (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Atheism dependent on the state collapses fast when state support is eliminated as can be seen at: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union. The resurgence of religion after state supported atheism can happen quick as per: Central and Eastern Europe and desecularization

Once Muslims and/or evangelicals and right-wing conservatives have a sufficiently large voting majority and evolutionary indoctrination is eliminated in schools like what has been done to a large degree in Turkey, Western atheism will collapse relatively quickly.

The wildcards are: Will the European Muslim birthrate go down? How much will immigration policies change in Europe? Will a Reconquista 2.0 cause Muslims to be expelled from Europe? Will the Europeans do a more rigorous crackdown on Muslim terrorism in order to delay anti-Muslim immigration forces from gaining traction sooner? Are Christian and/or Muslim creationists going to step up their outreach efforts? Will Catholicism continue to see modest growth in Europe?[4] Conservative (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

It looks like the Muslim immigration flow to Europe will be the key factor as far as Islam and Europe as can be seen by these two articles:

• Fertility Patterns of Native and Migrant Muslims in Europe, 2016

• Demographics: Why Islamic Societies are Dying, 2016Conservative (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

What a hero. Flat out called Trump a liar. Strange there's no mention on MPR. JanZ (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Corker is a moderate/establishment Republican who chose not to run again because he feared a primary election loss. Corker's parthian shot is not very impressive.

Trump firing back at Corker may make tax reform harder. For example, Trump's comments about McCain's war hero status may have caused McCain to vote against repealing ObamaCare.

Nevertheless, the world is moving towards right-wing populist politics. Brexit-Trump-Betty Devos-Le Pen's support among the young-AFD in Germany-Roy Moore. The left is sweating and getting violent because they are feeling like trapped rats in a corner.Conservative (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Leftists and the establishment have been calling Trump a "liar" (and worse) since he announced his presidential campaign -- Corker's comments are nothing new. What is new is that now it's blatantly apparent that Corker (and much of the GOP Senate caucus) is a RINO establishmentarian and an opportunist. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

So many people maintained their silence for so many years. Why now? Why the New York Times? The hammer came down soon after Weinstein green lighted the production of a pro-Israel movie. See American Thinker. Since the scandal broke, Weinstein has canceled production and promised to work against the NRA. So his first reaction was to worry that he hadn't been politically correct enough. PeterKa (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Harvey's brother engineered the hit so he could take over the TWC production company, according to CNN: "Harvey Weinstein believes his brother Bob betrayed him." PeterKa (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

It never had anything to do with sexual harassment. When Weinstein could pick the winners, he was Meryl Streep's "agent and God." His current movies are poorly preforming sequels (Shakespeare in Love, Sin City, Kill Bill and Fahrenheit 11/9). With no hits in the theaters, he's out with yesterday's garbage. Did Streep know or not? "Not everybody knew," she says coyly.[5] PeterKa (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

As Mark Steyn reminds us, we've seen this movie before. In the next act, the Hollywood malefactor returns as a hero. After all, Harvey's crimes are not nearly as shocking as, say, Polanski's or Arbuckle's. Polanski has put out one substandard movie after another. Only Chinatown redeems him. Weinstein's claim to being an artistic genius is at least as good as Polanski's.
Check this out: "Harvey Weinstein: Contract with TWC allowed for sexual harassment." He'll be able to sue TWC for big bucks. Being fired may be the best thing that every happened to him. PeterKa (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

On Tuesday, the Trump Administration criticized Congress for taking so many breaks, and the next day, the House (supposedly GOP-controlled) voted to extend its current break.[6] It's clear that Congress is deliberately subverting Trump's agenda.

The establishment GOP is complaining that Bannon will cause the GOP to lose one or both houses of Congress, and they say that will be bad because Congress won't be able to advance Trump's agenda, but even now, they are apparently unwilling to do it -- thus, losing Congress to the Dems will be an effective status-quo election result. Conservatives have literally zero to loose with Bannon's actions.

BTW, if the Democrats take Congress, I predict they will lengthen their workweek and take fewer breaks -- like they did during the Obama Administration. Their policies are terrible, but they know how to advance their globalist/socialist agenda. --1990'sguy (talk)

A white mass killer is too good to be true for the leftist media. That's why they look no further at the contrary evidence.

• What did Paddock do for a living? Played video poker? If you are counting cards at the casino they will kick you out even though it's legal and slightly tips the odds less in the casino's favor. Now we're supposed to believe Paddock mastered video poker and the casinos let him not only stay, but gave him complementary rooms and food, hoping the luck will turn in the casino's favor? I guess the casinos have to cut back on their lavish accommodations for everyone else while he's in town. Great business model, huh?

• How many non-ideological mass killers have a girlfriend?

• If Paddock was alone, why were there reports of gunfire from the fourth floor?

• Paddock's hotel room had a camera in the door's peep hole, and if everything was under control in the room, and not edgy, as with the presence of a hostage, why were dozens of rounds fired at a security guard (Campos) who approached the door before the massacre started?

• A maintenance worker at the hotel said Paddock Campos told him to "take cover" when the worker arrived to see the shooting start. Did Paddock have an accomplice another person with him in the suite who went out of was struggling to maintain control of the situation [where two individuals were conversing in the hallway]? (Website Breaking 911 had a transcription error and what the maintenance worker really claimed was that he saw the injured security guard [Campos]—not Paddock—along with the first bursts of gunfire, and that it was Campos who told him to take cover.)

• If there were no accomplices, why did it take eight days and revised timelines for the authorities to establish when Paddock checked in? Because there were Arabic names associated with his check-in time and location, and the FBI doesn't want to dig into the possibility that ISIS made it over our laxly-enforced border to carry out their second grand-scale mass murder, the first being in Orlando?

• Why was Paddock's body discovered with rubber gloves on his hands unless he expected to survive the attack, rather than commit suicide, and not leave evidence that he was the shooter?

• What did Paddock do for a living? Lose at video poker all day with a return of 98 cents, or worse, on the dollar? Terrible way to invest, but great way to launder money. Could Paddock be a gun-runner, explaining the variety of guns in the room, but who didn't have an accomplice but rather a client or clients who overpowered Paddock and committed the murders?

• Could the shooter have used the rubber gloves and placed them on Paddock after he was dead to implicate him and otherwise explain the lack of fingerprints on the arsenal of weapons?

• Wasn't the killer(s) escaping the premises a real possibility since the security at the Mandalay hotel failed to clear the stairwell until long after the wounded security guard [(taking cover at the end of the hall) informed the police who arrived on] left the floor [which door the gunfire came from] two minutes after the shooting stopped?

• Didn't witnesses report that there was an Arabic woman who showed up at the front row of the concert before it started telling everybody that they were going to die? Couldn't have another perpetrator or perpetrators with motive to commit the massacre overpowered Paddock days before and prepared the attack days in advance and hoped to employ a crude sort of terror "narrative" with this woman in a mysterious and terror-inducing role? VargasMilan (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Regarding ideological mass killers and having a girlfriend, didn't Joseph LeBon have a wife who supported him in his mass killings at Arras? Pokeria1 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

That I don't know, but the Muslim husband and wife in the San Bernardino atrocity who were an ideological pair could be another example.VargasMilan (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2017 (EDT) correction two: 17:20, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

He just liked gloves. It wasn't about fingerprints. See "Who was Stephen Paddock? The mystery of the ‘most boring son’." This article also claims he made his money buying depressed real estate and fixing it up. If he was so good at real estate, why did he switch to video poker? At any rate, it's the best explanation I've seen. PeterKa (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Yes, it really is a mixed up world -- except for my Lola. Once, they were eunuchs. Now they are "gender confirmed." Caitlyn Jenner was always Caitlyn Jenner. He was not "born a boy" and was never Bruce. Those are the latest style rules from AP, the news media's most influential style model.[7] PeterKa (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Well, that settles it - the Associated (or should I say, Dissociated) Press has officially lost all credibility (as well as all its marbles). Northwest (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

In 2015, after the Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay "marriage" in the USA, triumphant liberals declared the culture war was over and they had won.

Fast forward to the USA 2016 presidential election: Evangelicals and conservative Catholics helped propel Donald Trump to victory. Trump was the first U.S. president to go to the Values Voter Summit.

If Trump elects one more U.S. Supreme Court, it could change the conservative vs. liberal balance on the court for many years to come.Conservative (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

Please see: Conservapedia Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an officially recognized mental disorder.

Question: Will the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) be the next authoritative source to recognize this debilitating mental health disorder?Conservative (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

That made my day, User:Conservative! Thank you for your amazing insights.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I thought this was rather humorous:

In 2017, the atheist PZ Myers, quoting fellow leftist Alex Nichols, wrote:

"..the growing popularity of jibes associating outspoken atheists with fedoras, neckbeards, and virginity, led to an exodus of liberals and leftists from the “atheist” tent. Those who remained for the most part lacked in social skills and self-awareness, and the results were disastrous."[8]

The secular left and the atheist movement is imploding at a faster and faster rate.Conservative (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

When Obamacare become law, no insurance company wanted anything to do with it. So Obama pulled out his "pen and phone" and created a subsidy not provided for in the law. It was an unconstitutional attack on congressional control of the budget. Even the media admits that the Obamacare insurance system may not survive if it is implemented as written. The Dems may regret their stubbornness in the repeal and replace debate. Obamacare backers claim that the subsidy was supposed to be included in the law, but left out as an oversight. Few congressmen would have been eager to vote in favor of an appropriation bill providing payments to insurance companies, so at very least it was a convenient oversight. Obamacare was always a fraud, pushed through Congress with the false claim that the insurance companies would pay for it. See National Review. PeterKa (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I want it gone as much as you, I'm sure, but the problem is that they will push this as "proof" that they need a single-payer system. "See? We tried to work with insurance companies, but they just wouldn't cooperate. Now we need to take complete control so it can work!" I'm afraid to rejoice at its failure--people are two brain-washed and trusting, so they will just go on like sheep to the next, even worse option. --David B ^(TALK) 15:41, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Here's something to build a Weinstein bio around:

Weinstein "told me, in front of the publicist and a co-worker beside him, that a famous star, a few years my senior, had once sat across from him in the chair I was in now. Because of his “very close relationship” with this actress, she had gone on to play leading roles and win awards. If he and I had that kind of “close relationship,” I could have a similar career. “That’s how it works,” I remember him telling me. The implication wasn’t subtle. I replied that I wasn’t very ambitious or interested in acting, which was true. He then asked me about my political activism and went on to recast himself as a left-wing activist." [9] RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 03:11, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

Amid all the doom and gloom spewing from the left, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has broken all records, having just past its fifth 1,000-point milestone since Trump was elected. It is now over 23,000. See: [10] --David B ^(TALK) 15:35, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Stock market prices are based on expectations of future growth for companies and the economy.

When Ronald Reagan reformed the tax code, there was a big jump upward in the economy. If Trump gets something passed on tax reform, it could be very big.

trump is also cutting out onerous regulations on businesses and these regulations are often tough on small businesses.

Trump is also doing things that will speed up the collapse of ObamaCare and give business people and some consumers more options. ObamaCare collapsing and being replaced by a better system could also be boost to the economy. Many companies are no longer offering full-time work due to ObamaCare rules imposed upon them.

European politics affects USA politics too. European politics is moving the right and we could see big further gains in terms of right-wing politics in the upcoming 2021/2022 German and French presidential elections. The continued irritant of Muslim terrorism, Muslim rioting, Muslim non-assimilation and Muslim sexual/other crimes in Europe will insure that European politics shifts rightward. Conservative (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Trump-Russia is all about getting even with the American people because we dared to vote for the "wrong" person. Otherwise, why would this story be trending today: "How Hillary Clinton still can, and should, become president after the Trump-Russia investigation." That may sound like an Onion parody, but it's a serious Newsweek article. Now, the nation is not pinning for the lost presidency of HRC, at least not according to this article: "A new poll shows that Hillary Clinton's approval rating is even worse than Trump's." Judging from her memoir and recent interviews, feeling sorry for herself is her current full-time job. She should feel lucky that she's not in jail, which is where she belongs after destroying 30,000 emails that she was supposed to turn over to the FBI. PeterKa (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

"Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig offered a Clinton path to the presidency on Medium, putting forward a series of "if/then" scenarios that lead to House Speaker Paul Ryan handing the White House keys to Clinton." - Newsweek[[11]

Lessig needs to step out of his ivory tower cocoon more and spend more time in real world. You can tell he is a law professor and not a history professor.Conservative (talk)

• Widow admits interpreting president's remarks as disparaging and dismissive - MSM and Democrats pretend the paraphrase was a verbatim quote.

He said, ‘Well, I guess you knew’ — something to the effect that ‘he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, but I guess it hurts anyway.’ You know, just matter-of-factly, that this is what happens, anyone who is signing up for military duty is signing up to die. That’s the way we interpreted it. [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/18/totally-fabricated-trump-disputes-congresswomans-depiction-of-his-exchange-with-soldiers-widow/?utm_term=.568fbc4a313d]

This is typical of the media - to pretend that their interpretation of what Trump said is an exact quote - or that they knew what he had in mind. We need to call them on it more often. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:45, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

Hillary went to the funeral of a Benghazi victim and lied to his family about a how the incident was triggered by an anti-Muslim videotape. The first problem here is that this is such a stupid lie that expecting anyone to believe it is insulting. It's also using a funeral as just another place to push partisan talking points. At this time, Obama was preposterously claiming to have solved the problem of terrorism. It followed that Benghazi was not about terrorism. Instead, it was an "inappropriate videotape on Youtube" issue. I don't know what Trump said, but it would be hard to top that in terms of inappropriate treatment of the bereaved. PeterKa (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2017 (EDT)

When Bush approved the banking bailout, he told us he was chucking his principles. Who needs principles when you can call people juvenile names like "bigot," "white supremacist," and "racist"? See "George W. Bush delivers clear rebuke, without mentioning Trump by name." The media is spinning this as "Trump has gotten so extreme he's made Bush team up with the Clintons." But in fact, W has been best buddies with Bill Clinton for many years, even before Trump became a Republican. And it's specifically Bill who is his buddy and Hillary only as Bill's partner. Bill and W are both glad-handing Southern good old boys. In other words, sexual harassment doesn't seem to be much of an issue for him. PeterKa (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

According to Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino, "everyone who was close" to Weinstein knew what he was doing -- the same people who condemned Trump for his alleged acts.[12] Here's an interesting article on the number of alleged acts of sexual abuse, comparing Weinstein, Cosby, O'Reilly, Trump, and Ailes -- I noticed that Cosby and Weinstein committed significantly more alleged acts than the others, but the Left was OK with Weinstein's acts while going ballistic at Trump and O'Reilly (even though almost all of Trump's accusers accused him just before the election, an apparent attempt to take him down rather than get justice). --1990'sguy (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Based on the "no firing for sexual harassment" clause in his contract, it's clear TWC's lawyers and board of directors knew this was an issue at least since 2015.[13] PeterKa (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Basically, the liberal side of the fence expects to get away with it. Which brings to mind a very classic Hollywood line: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Karajou (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2017 (EDT)

• All these stories about starlets and producers may be titillating, but I know what you are thinking: Where's the racism angle? Well, Buzzfeed has found it. Weinstein and other producers were more attracted to white women, you see, so black actresses ended up with fewer parts. That's Hollywood for you. When it's not being sexist, it's being racist. Lupita Nyong'o's accusations seem awfully convenient in this context.[14] Soon, the directors will have to be gay. PeterKa (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Trump's phone call to a bereaved military family has eclipsed the latest Clinton scandal, at least in the mainstream media. At the time Hillary approved the purchase of Uranium One by Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, the FBI was actively investigating a Russian bribery and racketeering scheme to gain control of the U.S. uranium industry. Director Mueller authorized the investigation in 2009, when Hillary was secretary of state. It was quashed by Comey in 2015. While the details of Mueller's investigation of Trump get leaked in real time, it took six years for the media to report on this investigation. The book Clinton Cash (2015) documents that the Russians made a payment to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for her approval of the Uranium One transaction. But the book doesn't mention Russian racketeering in the uranium trucking industry. The way the story has been told up to now, the transaction was a legitimate business investment. OK, so Hillary is corrupt and greedy and what else is new? This news suggests that the FBI was a partner in crime. What did Mueller and Rosenstein know of Hillary's links to Russia at the time of Mueller's appointment as special counsel? See "FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow." This column by Mark Steyn helpfully reviews the background. PeterKa (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2017 (EDT)

Got it started. Uranium One bribery scandal. It is important to realize up front (1) the Clinton Foundation received donations from multiple sources, and more importantly (2) the Clintons personally received remuneration in the form of speaking fees paid to Bill Clinton. It is extraordinarily important not to confuse the two as Clinton defenders are and will try to do. Try to avoid discussion on Foundation donations, unless you have solid information and are familiar with it. Focus on Bill Clinton's speech, which is a half million dollar emolument paid to Hillary Clinton. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:33, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

Rosenstein ran the DOJ investigation into Russian racketeering. In 2009, Obama wanted to "reset" relations with Russia. So the investigation just spun its wheels until 2014, when Putin invaded Crimea and ended reset. Then the case was quieted pleaded out so as not to attract media attention.[15]

For John Podesta, "green jobs" was a scam to earn a fast buck for himself. Here is the Daily Caller: "EXCLUSIVE: Podesta’s ‘Green Company’ Forced to Close Because Hillary Lost the Election." These kind of scams have been exposed before, but liberals take them in stride. Where are the True Believers who just want to save the Earth? Shouldn't they be outraged by this abuse of their cause? PeterKa (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

The "Russia dossier" full of filth and attacks on Trump turns out to be a Clinton production. Here is the Washington Post: "Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier." The pro-Clinton late night comedians jumped on the dossier right away, even while proclaiming that "Never Trump" Republicans were responsible for it. So there was reason to suspect it was campaign stunt from the beginning. This article says, "Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary." So there is still a possibility that the "Never Trump Republican" cover story wasn't a complete lie. We will know more when the House intel committee gets the bank records. I can remember back when raising the level of our nation's political discourse was considered a reason to vote for Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

What would have happened to the dossier if Hillary had won the election? Obviously, the campaign couldn't have continued to finance it. But the way had been prepared for research to continue as an FBI project. See "Report: FBI offered to pay for work on Trump dossier." In other words, it was all about prosecuting Trump for treason or something similar. There is no punishment too severe for the crime of running against Hillary as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Wasn't it Hillary who told us that prosecuting opposition leaders was a threat to our democracy? PeterKa (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

• WaPo is now pooh-poohing it's own story: "So what exactly is the scandal here? Is it that the Clinton campaign conducted opposition research on Trump?" Who is this writer kidding? Given what we know about coordination between the Clinton campaign and the press from Wikileaks, there is no way this stuff could have come out the way it did without the approval of someone at the top level of ClintonWorld. Steve Colbert was Hillary's biggest shill in the entertainment industry. He embraced the dossier early and with enthusiasm. The dossier was compiled by the head of the Russia desk for British intelligence and it was clearly of great interest to the FBI and to Mueller. One has to wonder why these people, who should have access to all kinds of intel, rely on a report of such dubious quality. Maybe it's the best they have. Or perhaps Podesta said, "Use this report." Comey. Mueller, and rest just follow orders. PeterKa (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

Note: Steele was not hired until two months after the Republican client quit. MSM & DNC spin now is the Republicans are responsible for the bogus material. A theory: the Republican client (McCain most likely, on behalf of Lindsey Graham) hired FusionGPS to investigate Trump-Russia ties. FusionGPS came up with nothing, but told the GOP client it could be manufactured. That's when the GOP got out and the DNC took over. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:39, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

Good guess, but it turns out the Republican client was Jeb Bush. Hillary hired FusionGPS in April 2016, around the time of the New York primary.[16] PeterKa (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

Now they're saying it was Paul Singer through Washington Beacon. Singer was Rubio's money man.[17] In any event, Steele was hired after the Clinton campaign began financing Fusion GPS. So blaming any Republican for the dossier is misdirection. PeterKa (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

I find it interesting that the mainstream media is reporting on the savings of the ObamaCare stabilization "compromise" bill,[18] (only $3.8 billion over the next 10 years) while the repeal bills would have saved much more (one of them $321 billion over the next 10 years). However, with the repeal bills, which would largely reverse the slide toward socialism, the media was fixated on the number of people who would be insured. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

The globalists may finally be dumping the greedy, scandal-ridden Clintons. See "It's time for a special counsel on Hillary Clinton's Russia scandal." It's Trump's most controversial campaign promise in The Hill, once a reliable Hillary booster. Soros is dumping money into 2018 House races, but that doesn't look like a promising strategy. The Cook Report currently puts Republicans ahead 228 to 192. In terms of bellwethers for 2018, the Virginia House of Delegates election on November 7 is the race to watch.[19] PeterKa (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

The Dems have successfully changed the subject of the hour from Uranium One and the Steele Dossier to, "What is Mueller going to do Monday?"[20] Is there a precedent for leaking arrests in advance? Whatever he is planning to do, the fact the Mueller does anticipatory leaks like this shows that his focus is political theater. Mueller was head of the FBI in 2010 when Clinton approved the Uranium One purchase by Rosatom. The FBI's criminal investigation of Russian influence in the uranium industry at the time rated only a local Maryland press release.
It occurred to me that Mueller is using the same tactic against Trump as he did with Bruce Ivins, the anthrax killer. The FBI harassed Ivins and then told his lawyer that the grand jury had decided to indict. He committed suicide in response. The FBI also promoted a theory that Ivins was obsessed with some sorority. I'm sure this was embarrassing to Ivins, but it didn't seem to have much connection to the case. Several jurors later told the media they were nowhere near indictment at the time Ivins died. It was all a dirty trick by Mueller to avoid potential embarrassment in court. When more advanced genetic sequencing techniques became available a few years later, the National Research Council was able to confirm that the anthrax used in the mailings came from Ivins' lab.
Why did Hillary and the FBI need an MI6 agent to write up the nonsensical Steele Dossier? And why didn't it become public until after the election? Mark Steyn has a excellent theory. It was all about getting a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump and his associates. One thing Steyn ignores is that the FBI's initial request for a warrant was turned down by the FISA court in June 2016. I guess the dossier wasn't up the court's standards, at least not at that time.PeterKa (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Please see: Essay: The death rattles of liberalism and secular leftism.Conservative (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Christians and Trump

Conservative Christians who throw their lot in with Trump can kiss goodbye to any claims of moral authority for a generation. I can see the T-shirts now: I voted Trump and all I got was that lousy Gorsuch. PhillipKD (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

It's the Left that loses its credibility when it constantly claims that Christians are hypocrites for supporting Trump -- not only is Hillary "married" to a known sexual assaulter and pervert (as well as the fact that she has defended Bill and gone after the victims), but her policies are very anti-Christian. She supports the ERA, repealing the Hyde Amendment, forcing Chrisitan business owners to violate their consciences, expanded abortion "rights," strong support for the homosexual/transsexual agenda, etc. Gorsuch has shown himself to be the most conservative Supreme Court justice so far (tied with Thomas), but Clinton would have nominated a far-left "living Constitution" (aka. interpret it however you want to) advocate. I'm sure many, if not most, politicians of all political views are moral misfits (besides, see Romans 3), so, as Greg Gutfeld recently said, "it's better to have a competent jerk in office than a charming failure," particularly a jerk who has the right policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I find it interesting that leftists -- most of whom reject and abhor biblical morality -- are lecturing Christians and other social conservatives on how to be moral people. A vote for a politician endorses their policies (not necessarily their morality or lifestyle) and shows faith in their ability to be a good leader.

Besides, if the opposite were the case, it would have not only utterly disqualified Clinton, Trump, and Johnson (the only candidates with any chance of winning), but also Romney (a Mormon) and Reagan (divorced). What you're seeing is Christians understanding that it's substance (policies) that matters rather than relatively superficial characteristics. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Son, I've watched conservatives, evangelicals et al fight tooth and nail for years re. the importance of character, faith and principle in their elected representatives. As fundamentally as I've disagreed with their worldview, I've always respected their consistency and the strength of their convictions. To see them suddenly bend over for this "jerk" has been a profound disappointment, to say the least. PhillipKD (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

The reason is because the alternative is even worse -- she wants to restrict the liberties of Christians (force Christians to pay for abortions, bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, etc. etc.), while Trump strongly supported religious liberty and has policies that are actually good for religious liberty (rather than not horrible). This was a very urgent election (Supreme Court, etc.) at a time where the Left has become much bolder than it was during the Bill Clinton years and now openly wants to reduce the religious freedom of Christians. Trump and Clinton's policies could not be more different, and his actions as president (Supreme Court, Mexico City rule, etc. etc.) show that electing him was worth it. Sure, I do wish he had a Christian character (for example, celebrating Reformation Day instead of Holloween, or less swearing), but it's much better than Clinton (both of them) who not only has a horrible character but has horrible policies that would negatively affect the religious liberty of Christians. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

In the 1920s, the evangelical movement was led by William Jennings Bryan. He was a populist and a Democrat. Nowadays, the Democrats tell us that they don't want anyone who opposes abortion in their party. You can't square that position with Christianity. Trump is America's president, flaws and all. King David, God's "man after my own heart," was not free of sin. The Russia-Trump conspiracy theory is an attempt to delegimize the last election. It's an attack on the democratic process by an anti-Christian party. PeterKa (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

And by the way, PhillipKD (aka JohnZ), you continue to ignore the fact that evangelicals solidly voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and for Romney in 2012 -- so much for the lie that there is a "major shift" going on with evangelicals. If we followed your opinion of what we should do, we would have solidly rejected those two people for their obvious moral failings. I'm sure we could name other people as well. If we listened to your opinion, Clinton (a corrupt politician "married" to a rapist and pervert and who defended him) would now be president (even if we voted for a third party candidate), and she would be making policy.

In political elections, we choose politicians, not pastors -- and that's a statement I've heard a lot from fellow Christians years before Trump ever declared his candidacy. Evangelicals have known this when voting for Reagan (a divorced man, and this fact was much more significant than it would be today), and for Romney (a Mormon). We know the other side is at least just as bad, regarding their personal lives, and much worse regarding their policies. And evangelical Christians are very relieved Trump defeated Clinton and is now making policy in a way they were not when the Bushes won, or if McCain or Romney won. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

PhillipKD/JohnZ, Democrats (and liberals as a whole) have no claim to moral authority, period, so they're in no position whatsoever to lecture conservatives on morality. Creating a sock to get around the indefinite block of your original account just so you can make your hypocritical comments regarding morality only proves what I and others have said here regarding Democrats/liberals and their specious claims to morality. Northwest (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Obama and Bill Clinton made an effort to woo white evangelical voters. Hillary chose not to and it cost her the election.[21]

And to make matters worse, a top spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign mocked Catholics and evangelical Christians in a 2011 email exchange.[22] Thanks to Wikileaks (and perhaps Vladimir Putin who attends a Russian Orthodox Church), we know about this matter. :)

Obama won reelection in 2012 while bashing Christians. Secularists thought they had won the culture wars at that point. If Clinton had reached out to Christians in 2016, there would have been a backlash. PeterKa (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Pride cost Hillary the election. And pride keeps Hillary from putting the blame squarely on her shoulders for losing the election. Conservative (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, it is rather remarkable that PhillipKD/JohnZ attempted attempted to lecture evangelicals on morality. After atheists recently took many large bites out of the forbidden fruit of the tree of bestiality, you would have thought he would have known better (see: Atheism and bestiality).

Bernie Sanders was so ashamed of his atheism in 2016, he lied and totally denied being an atheist - even though he is one.[23] Yes, the cock didn't even have to crow once before Sanders denied his atheism! If Sanders had admitted he was an atheist, he would have been a less competitive candidate in the Democratic primary. But he lied. It's obviously Sanders fault that Hillary lost the 2016 election!

A study showed that even atheists don't trust their fellow atheists (see: Distrust of atheists). Why do so many atheists distrust their fellow atheists? Because atheists know that atheists lie so much! Conservative (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, another important point is that there is no such thing as objective morality under the atheistic worldview of PhillipKD/JohnZ (see: Atheism and morality). PhillipKD/JohnZ has to borrow from Christian worldview in order talk about moral matters in meaningful manner. But if he does this, then he is being hypocritical/inconsistent (see: Atheist hypocrisy). Conservative (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

PhillipKD/JohnZ wrote: "Conservative Christians who throw their lot in with Trump can kiss goodbye to any claims of moral authority for a generation. I can see the T-shirts now: I voted Trump and all I got was that lousy Gorsuch".

The truth is that theologically conservative Christianity can and does thrive in communist China, Latin America or in the Western democracies. Biblical Christianity is not dependent on the state or any politician to thrive. For example, the BBC recently indicated that pentecostal Christianity is growing fast in Britain (see: Life and Death the Pentecostal Way Full BBC Documentary 2016). Evangelical Christianity is growing fast in France.[24]

JohnZ's secular leftism, however, is very dependent on the state. It needs the state to push evolutionism. It needs to the state to push secular leftist dogma on the religious (see: Atheist indoctrination). According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[25]

The truth is that JohnZ is sweating. The Guardian recently reported that Britain may have hit "peak secular".[26] The British police just used public resources to produce a 12-minute video promoting Islam in the UK.[27] British atheism is incredibly doomed. It won't be long before the anti-evolutionist Lord Kelvin is put on British currency!Conservative (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for your points. It's true that atheists have to borrow from Christianity to make any moral judgments. JohnZ does just that when he makes moral judgments about Trump and Christians voting for him. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, given the low morale and fundraising difficulties that atheist organizations are experiencing (see: Atheist organizations and fundraising), you would think that JohnZ would take a play from the playbook of the Boy/Girl Scouts of America and sell candy bars or cookies in front of supermarkets to support atheist organizations instead of wrangling with Christian conservatives at Conservapedia.

JohnZ, see: Decline of the atheist movement. Game over. Fantasies of the secular left to attain hegemony in future are now effectively over.

"We’re saying merry Christmas again." - Donald J. Trump.[28]Conservative (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

Manafort's job as a democracy consultant in Ukraine turns out to be a cover for a scam. Who would have thought? What he was really doing was helping wealthy Russians transfer $75 million of their ill-gotten gains to Cyprus, the U.S., and other offshore havens. This happened from 2006 to 2014. None of that is a violation of American law, so he is being prosecuted for not declaring income on his tax returns and other forms, and for not registering as a foreign agent. Democratic consultant Tony Podesta, John's brother, was apparently doing much the same thing. Not to minimize such paperwork violations, but they rarely result in extended prison time. After all, it's the Russian economy that's out $75 million, not us. The New Republic called the Black, Manafort law firm "state-of-the-art sleezeballs" back in 1985.[29] In short, the Mueller indictment has little to do with the Trump campaign or the 2016 election.[30][31] PeterKa (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

Andrew McCarthy ponders the question of why Manafort was charged only with technical paperwork violations rather than, say, tax evasion. DOJ regulations say that all tax charges must be approved by the Tax Division. Perhaps the Tax Division thought this issue was Mueller's problem and didn't want to get involved. PeterKa (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

Robert Mueller appearing with John O'Neill, author of John Kerry's bio, Unfit For Command and Founder of the Swiftboaters, June 10, 1971 on the Dick Cavett Show. https://youtu.be/TXi1XUjGPAQ RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:47, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

If the Russians supported Trump, they sure had a funny way of showing it: "How the Russians Got 10,000 People to Turn out for This One Protest and Got CNN to Cover It". This protest was organized on Facebook by BlackMattersUS, a Moscow front. It was held November 12, 2016 in Manhattan. PeterKa (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

All I can say on that matter is, if the Russians didn't even bother to topple Karl Marx's statue at Teatralnaya Square in Moscow back when the USSR collapsed, then we really shouldn't dismiss them regarding Communism even if the USSR collapsed. In other words, if Russia is truly sincere in desiring to get rid of any elements of communism, we should make SURE they topple Marx statues in addition to Lenin statues, just so they can prove they have stopped adopting Communism. This whole thing only reinforces the fact that we should put the screws on Russia to force them to get rid of Communism from their country, settling for absolutely nothing less than the complete and total toppling and destruction of any and all communist icons. I could care less if it results in the Czar returning, as long as Communism is as dead as a doornail. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

On October 31, 2016, the New York Times headline was "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia." A year later, liberal reporters are so devoted to the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that there are uprisings by employees at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal demanding an end to skeptical commentary. So what's changed in the year since? I am not aware of any breakthrough revelation, something that we now know about Trump's Russia connections that we didn't know then. Shattered explains that within hours of learning the election result, Hillary, Mook, and Podesta got together and decided they were not taking the blame. They were going to put the blame Russia. The country's has quite an appetite for Trump news. When there isn't any, CNN is happy make it up. PeterKa (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

• The bulk of the so called "Russian meddling" in the election happened after the election and was intended to undermine Trump.[32] The BlackMattersUS protest is thus a representative example. PeterKa (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

Hi,
maybe it doesn't really matter, but in the news section is written that "Allahu Akbar" means "god is greater." While this is a more or less accurate translation, I would argue that:

1. The implied meaning is "greater than them all", which means "greatest"--to say "greatest" would be more clear to readers. Using "great" or even "greater" masks the meaning that they see all others as inferior.
2. Although Allah is their god, is it not a proper name? Therefore, would this not be better translated as "Allah is greater" (or greatest)? Removing his name from the translation seems to be an attempt to make Islam and all other religions (most notably, Christianity) appear more similar.

It seems that even as terrorists are proclaiming in essence, "Allah is greater than them all! *BOOM*" the left keeps protecting them even by mistranslating this phrase. --David B ^(TALK) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

"God is great" is a common phrase in English while "greater" and "greatest" sound odd in this context. Allahu akbar is the equivalent phrase in Arabic. It's a conventional phrase and the people who use it are not parsing the -er versus -est issue. I'd translate it as, "Allah is great." PeterKa (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

Merriam-Webster gives "God is great." PeterKa (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

The good people of Virginia will deliver their verdict Tuesday. But early signs suggest that a year of nonstop Russia conspiracy mongering will not be the election winner that the Hillaryistas assumed it would be.
Donna Brazile's book accusing Hillary of rigging the primaries has temporarily displaced Russia as the talk of the town. We all knew DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz was a Hillary tool, so in a sense this is nothing new. That there was actual contract between the DNC and the Hillary campaign requiring the DNC to serve as a tool of the campaign is a jaw dropping revelation. This contract was signed right around the time that the FBI investigation of Hillary's emails was upgraded to a "criminal probe." Bernie was not yet on the horizon, but Biden was still a viable alternative to Hillary. That the Brazile book can now be published suggests that the Dems are pretty much fed up with Hillary.
Ken Starr says the Mueller investigation will soon shift its focus to Hillary. I don't know how Starr would know such things, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Mueller's immediate supervisor, and Trump do seem to be making nice to each other in the last few days. Mueller and Rosenstein may be trying to head off the appointment of a second independent counsel who might, for example, investigate the Uranium One sale. The public has low confidence in Mueller,[33] so his position with respect to Trump is not a strong one. PeterKa (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2017 (EST)

America's greatest economy in forty years and do Virginians want more? Apparently not: "BREAKING: Historic Democrat Wave Wiping Out Virginia GOP." Northern Virginia is the Deep State's heartland, the only area that boomed under Obama. This election was all about the bureaucrats who live in the DC suburbs, as this map shows. Trump lost Virginia by five points in 2016. Northam won by nine points on Tuesday. This type of off year election generally has a low turnout, and it seems the swamp was outraged and mobilized. PeterKa (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2017 (EST)

The Republican Swamp got the loss they wanted so they can take back the GOP from Trump. They will use the elections to try to promote their globalist agenda and say that the GOP must become a Democrat-lite party to win, even though the Virginia candidates who supported Trump the most performed the best. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (EST)

Very good insights. Indeed, it was the swamp itself that was voting.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2017 (EST)

It turns out that Gilespie outperformed Trump. He got 45 percent of the vote compared to the Trump's 44 percent.[34] Northam got a bigger share of the vote than Hillary because there weren't any leftwing third party candidates in the race this time around. Virginia's new governor sounds like quite a piece of work: "'Sickening' VA Gov video shows minority kids hunted down by Gillespie voter" PeterKa (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2017 (EST)

A recent massive blow to the organized atheism in Australia.[35]

The 2018 Global Atheist Convention was cancelled due to poor ticket sales. The marque speakers that were scheduled were Salman Rushdie and Richard Dawkins. This was called a "massive blow" to organized atheism in Australia.[36]

The founders of the two leading creationist organizations - namely Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International - both came out of Australia. Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames." (see: Global creationism). What little funds the national American atheist organizations have they spend to address church-state issues and creationism (see: Atheist organizations and fundraising).

Australian militant atheists, over and over again you have failed!Wisdomcriesout (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2017 (EST)

New Poll: Atheists in Britain, Canada Are Losing Faith in Evolution.[37]Wisdomcriesout (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2017 (EST)

Another Donald Trump achievement: Prayer in the House of Representatives remains untainted by atheists. Atheist Dan Barker's attempt to lead prayer in the House thwarted.[38] Wikignome72 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2017 (EST)