Last modified on February 14, 2017, at 23:28

Talk:Main Page/Archive index/145

Return to "Main Page/Archive index/145" page.

Obama lets the UN kick Israel

The West Bank is Biblical Canaan, and God says it belongs to Israel: "Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it." (Psalm 105:9-12). The recent UN Security Council resolution condemns Jewish "settlements" in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.[1] Is there any spot of land on Earth that the Jews have a greater claim to? Who is the UN to tell Jews where they can and can't live? I hope all 14 of the ambassadors who voted to condemn Israel are permanently banned from the United States. Let the UN meet in Geneva from now on. PeterKa (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Would be fitting if the UN was relocated to Geneva, since Geneva was the birthplace of that puerile, monstrous philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who was pretty much responsible for the French Revolution and Reign of Terror. Personally, I'd want the UN completely dismantled, not just banned from the US. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2016 (EST)
Here is a great tweet: "I hope the UN building is a Trump hotel by 2020."[2] Fourteen of the fifteen Security Council members voted in favor. Only the U.S. abstained. There was sustained applause afterwards. The UN is a Nazi organization these days. PeterKa (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2016 (EST)
Not surprising. It just shows the racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry at the core of the Democratic party and Obama administration. Where's the mainstream media now on this? The good news is, the public can decypher the truth now by itself and doesn't follow mainstream media lies and brainwashing. RobS#NeverHillary 09:25, 24 December 2016 (EST)
If there is a policy rationale for this move, no one in the Obama regime has articulated it.[3] It is a cathartic "Screw you America, screw you Jews" outburst. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's behavior when he left office in 2001. PeterKa (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2016 (EST)
The cowards who run the Obama administration could not restrain their hate and Muslim agenda forever. On their way out the door, they spit in the eye of 40 years of US policy and Israel. RobS#NeverHillary 02:01, 25 December 2016 (EST)
What would "Mr Smith" do if "Mr Jones" built a greenhouse in his garden. The local council is largely on Smith's side but the most powerful council member sided with Jones and the greenhouse was allowed to stay on the reasoning that Smith was only a tennent on his land. Who's side would you be on? This is moral relatavism, something Conservapedia claims to abhor. One rule for the people you like, another for the people you don not.--AaronC1 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2016 (EST)
If "Mr. Smith" is the Jewish people, then they own title to the land of Israel; they are not mere tenants. Karajou (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2016 (EST)

Muslim registry

Did Trump actually "call" for a registry or database of Muslims? Or did a reporter put words into his mouth, as they so often do? I'm building an article, Muslim registry, trying to clarify this.

Near as I can determine in a few minutes of googling, a reporter made the suggestion and asked Trump to accept it or reject it. Trump attempted to dodge a yes/no answer, but the reporter took that as Trump didn't reject the idea -- and that turned into Trump supports the idea. Talk about fake news!

It's important because registering all members of a religion is "racist" - more precisely, it is religious bigotry, and smacks of the Nazi anti-Jewish campaigns of the 20th century. So if Trump were actually doing that, many conservatives would join liberals to condemn him.

What he's actually doing is proposing ways to stop terrorists. I'm sure he won't stop the FBI from using the well-known fact that most terrorists are Muslim. But that doesn't mean he'll make the obvious error of assuming that most Muslims are terrorists or that he'll force them to register. --Ed Poor Talk 13:26, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Islam is not (just) a religion. Islam is a political system, like communism or democracy. Under the McCarron Act of 1952, aleins were required to register annually at a local post office, and the dominant ideology of an alein's country of origin was enough for the FBI to keep track of them. RobS#NeverHillary 01:54, 25 December 2016 (EST)
In all fairness, technically if we go by the Talmud, Judaism's not (just) a religion, either, or even an ethnicity for that matter, it's a political system (the Talmud isn't exactly much different from the Quran in what it preaches. Heck, it even has a very similar ruling to Taqqiya, ie, it being okay to lie and cheat to a non-Jew if it advances Judaism.). But yeah, agreed on that front. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2016 (EST)
I fail to see how this is related to developing our Muslim registry article. It also isn't actually true. But if you want to write an article about religiously-sanctioned deception, please go ahead.
  • "Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jewish tradition teaches that how you deal with your fellows is perhaps the most important aspect of your relation with your Creator. This idea has been expressed both in Jewish teachings as well as in personal example since almost the beginning of time." [4]
You could also write an Essay on moral equivalence between Islam and Judaism (or Arabs and Israel), but be sure to provide references. --Ed Poor Talk 12:50, 25 December 2016 (EST)
Read these if you truly don't believe me, and they have plenty of sources from the Talmud, and most of these are direct quotations:
  • A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance. - Sanhedrin 59a
  • We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them into pieces. Take away, O Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy them immediately, in this very moment! - Zohar, Toldoth Noah 63b
  • When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves. - Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D
  • When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156
  • If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth. - Choschen Hamm 388, 15
  • Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: "Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath." At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: The Lord alone will appear great on that day! - Zohar, Vayshlah 177b
  • That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful. That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general. A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348
  • If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible. - Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5
  • Has it not been taught: “With respect to robbery – if one stole or robbed or seized a beautiful woman, or committed similar offences, if these were perpetrated by one Cuthean [non-Jew] against another, what is taken must not be kept, and likewise the theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained?” - Sanhedrin 57a
  • Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God. - Yalkut 245c
  • Extermination of the Christians is a necessary sacrifice. - Zohar, Shemoth
  • Even the best of the Goyim should be killed. (“Tob shebbe goyyim harog.”) - Soferim 15, rule 10
  • Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens? said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her at home, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her at home he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. - Avodah Zarah 22a-b
  • All Israelites will have a part in the future world.... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell. - Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha
  • Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night. - Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L
  • Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings. - Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 14, 20, 32, 33, 39
  • A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat. - Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348
  • A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl. - Gad. Shas. 2:2
  • A male goy after nine years and one day old, and a girl after three years and one day old, are considered filthy. - Pereferkowicz, Talmud t.v., p. 11
  • R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [intercourse], and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. - Sanhedrin 55b
  • Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.'... - Kethuboth 11b
  • It was taught: Rabbi Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: "Blessed art thou … who hast not made me a heathen … who hast not made me a woman; and ... who hast not made me a brutish man. Rabbi Ahab Jacob once overheard his son saying “Blessed art thou ... who hast not made me a brutish man,” whereupon he said to him, “And this too!” Said the other, “Then what blessing should I say instead?” He replied ... “who hast not made me a slave.” “And is not that the same as a woman?” – “A slave is more contemptible.” - Menachoth 43b-44a
  • Show no mercy to the Goyim. - Hilkkoth Akum X1
  • A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. - Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122
  • Source for quotes:
The Talmud also did the unthinkable especially in Abrahamic religions and said that God's basically weak, submissive, and subject to majority vote via a rabbinic council in order to do anything. I'm not kidding, read this:
  • Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” —BT Bava Metzia 59b
  • Source:
Honestly, I would have preferred it if God reacted like Kefka did when a majority objected to his actions, even if Kefka was a psychopath, since it at least showed he was powerful, at least powerful enough to not be restrained by a majority vote by mortals.
That being said, I'll still choose Judaism over Islam regarding which one should be spared. But I'm doing it through gritted teeth. And even there, the only Jewish people I'd trust are those who adhere strictly to the Torah/Old Testament. And as such, I do think we definitely should mandate that Muslims enter registry. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2016 (EST)
The first quote I checked was incorrect:
  • Sanhedrin 59a does say, recording a conversation between two teachers, that one of them zealously said that a heathen who looks into the Law (the Torah, not the Talmud) should be guilty of death. It goes on to say, however, that the other teacher destroyed his argument, showing instead that a heathen who pries into the Law becomes as a High Priest. So this quote is taken out of context, just like some political candidates take their opponent’s comments out of context for their own ads.


Let's leave blogs out of this, and not defend ludicrous claims with unverifiable quotes - many of which don't even pertain to the question at hand. On the other hand, if Pokeria wants to write an actual article (or even start with an essay) on various, selected controversial quotes, I'd be happy to suggest a writing assignment for him.

The rationale behind a Muslim registry is that Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and the irreligious don't have a strong present reputation for engaging in terrorism while Islam does (On the other hand, secular leftists have a reputation for being high-handed and trampling over religious liberty and that is why atheists have a hard time being elected in the USA), but I strongly suspect given Trump's track record that this may be merely an initial bargaining position and that Trump probably knows that a Muslim registry is not politically feasible in the United States at this time (In addition, he may be just pacifying members of his political base which are anti-Islamic). After all is said and done, I think a Trump administration will probably monitor Muslim extremists to a higher degree than the Obama administration and will restrict immigration from countries with a track record of Muslim extremism.

Given 9/11, other acts of Islamic terrorism in Europe/USA/Israel/elsewhere, the US staunch support of Israel, the high cost of monitoring the Muslim population, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have significant immigration from Muslim countries. And the fact is, the problem of Islamic terrorism is probably going to get worse. Islamic fundamentalists have a high fertility rate and the Israeli settlements are going to keep expanding. In addition, there may be civil war in France in the not too distant future due to friction between French secularists/Muslims/French nationalists (Even CNBC acknowledges this matter).

Here is what is happening in Britain:

"Evidence gathered by Dame Louise Casey, the government’s community cohesion tsar, will lift the lid on how some Muslims are cut off from the rest of Britain with their own housing estates, schools and television channels.
The report will ‘send shock waves through the system’, a Whitehall source said.
Her report finds that thousands of people from all-Muslim enclaves in northern cities such as Bradford, Dewsbury and Blackburn seldom, if ever, leave their areas and have almost no idea of life outside."[6]

Secular leftists are under the delusion that Muslims will assimilate. The reality is that a great many will not (see: Multiculturism and European desecularization). In addition, secular leftists often hold to multiculturism/postmodernism which indicates that all cultures are equal. The truth is - they are not. The countries that are the freest and the most prosperous have a Protest cultural heritage or significant influence of countries which have had Protestant cultural heritage (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Protestant cultural legacies). And with the secular left losing power in terms of the press/publishing, indoctrination by the left is going to be increasingly difficult for them.

The books The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics by Peter L. Berger and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order are notable books which so far have been very predictive and by all indications will continue to be predictive.

Liberals/secular leftists/academics (with the notable exception of Eric Kaufmann and a few other scholars), are currently in a state of denial - even after Brexit, the rise of European right-wing parties, Donald Trump's election victory and multiple cases of Islamic terrorism. The 21st century will be a century of desecularization (religious fundamentalists will grow in power) and secular leftists will lose power.

Putin (who is a former tool of the secular left and ex-KGB) is now firmly allied with the Russian Orthodox Church and is a Russian nationalist. He appears to have totally outwitted the leftists in the USA and many Democrats are hopping mad about this matter. After years of historical revisionism by the left as far as Communist atrocities and Russian history, the irony of this situation is delicious (see: Atheism and historical revisionism). Conservative (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2016 (EST)

I think there is enough evidence to show the storyline that Putin is ex-KGB is... well... KGB disinformation. And this is not an irrelevent point. In all likelihood, Putin is ex-GRU. KGB was foreign intelligence, GRU is military intelligence. Why is this a relevent point? Like in the US, CIA & KGB have reputations for political meddling and incompetence whereas GRU & DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) have strong reputations for professionalism and accuracy. It is no coincidence that Trump has dismissed reliance on CIA, and has entrusted national security affairs to a former head of DIA, now National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
KGB & the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) did not survive the Soviet Union. Soviet Military Intelligence (now Russian Military Intelligence) did, and moreless today makes up the core of Putin's leadership circle. RobS#NeverHillary 08:11, 26 December 2016 (EST)
I can't find anything about the recent Muslim ban (only 7 countries BTW). Personally I think that Muslim registry and a Muslim ban (of all Muslim majority countries) is a must because of all these terrorist attacks these days. How many Muslim countries ban Israeli citizens, nobody complains about that. Non-Muslims aren't even allowed to visit the city of Mecca! Safety of it's citizens is a primary task of every government, so yes to a Muslim ban. --Gentenaar (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2017 (EST)

Russian plane crash

Obama vowed reprisal for Russian hackers. Some people say the investigation is underway. RobS#NeverHillary 17:27, 25 December 2016 (EST)

Hillary's defeat from Russia

Missing quotes

"occupied Palestinian territory" should have quote marks. East Jerusalem wasn't Palestinian before the Israelis arrived. It's just territory the Palestinians would like to have. PeterKa (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2016 (EST)

Which articles do you refer to? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (EST)
"Fellow Democrats issue scathing statements towards Barack Hussein Obama over the US’s abstention from a UN Security Council vote demanding Israel stop building settlements in occupied Palestinian territory." It's now the 15th item, so it hardly matters anymore. PeterKa (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2016 (EST)
Quotes added as suggested. Better late than never!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2016 (EST)

New map image needed

Would someone please create a new version of File:ElectoralCollege2016.jpg that actually shows the faithless electors? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2016 (EST)

California legalizes child prostitution

This is what Democrats do when they have a two-thirds supermajority: "California Democrats legalize child prostitution" PeterKa (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2016 (EST)

Is there ANY way to get rid of the Democrats' stranglehold on California? Pokeria1 (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (EST)
It will be very, very hard at best. If people get very fed up with what's going on in the state (and it seems likely), they will elect a Republican, but even then, it will likely only be a RINO who only is conservative on a few fiscal matters. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (EST)
Maybe some hardline-conservative out of state should head to California and run for Governor there on a platform that makes clear it stands against liberal policies of any kind, and also make sure to get the message out, sort of like how Donald Trump won the election in America, and also make sure to place a lot of people at the ballot boxes with strict orders to see to it if there's any voter fraud being penetrated. California gave us Ronald Reagan, and I'm pretty sure there's still a chance at returning it to the state of Reagan Conservativism at the very least. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2016 (EST)
That would be a good idea, but only if they can advance to the runoff in the first place! (CA has a weird system where everyone runs on the same ballot and the top two winners, regardless of party, go to the runoff) In the 2014 gubernatorial election, Tim Donnelly, a Tea Party conservative was in the race, but he was edged out by Neel Kashkari, a RINO who is a leftist on social issues like abortion and homosexual "marriage." Many establishment Republicans such as Jeb Bush supported Kashkari because they thought he would win easier (he still lost in one of the most lopsided elections in CA history). Also, California's primary can allow two liberal Democrats to advance to the runoff, like it did in the 2016 U.S. Senate election. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2016 (EST)

Decriminalization doesn't make it legal, it lowers the penalty for getting caught. User:pruno

A child can now have three parents (biologically) in Britain

Wow, Britain recently legalized this practice.[7] Not only is this not natural, but an embryo is destroyed in the process. The first three-parent child could be born next year.[8] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2016 (EST)

How Clinton won the popular vote

The Democrats shamelessly added hundreds of thousands of illegals to the rolls in California. Breitbart has the details on how the state's let's-commit-voter-fraud-for-Hillary-law worked: California Licenses 800K Illegal Aliens as Motor Voter Law Looms." PeterKa (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2016 (EST)

I guess we should be thankful that this consciously-created problem exists is only one state (or at least in a state that already strongly leans Dem). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2016 (EST)
But Clinton won the popular vote by over three times that 800,000 voter figure. Even if this is true, it doesn't account for Clinton's victory. MatthewT (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2016 (EST)
One state? Hardly. At least eleven issue non-citizen driver licenses and allow people to register to vote with a driver license. But actually, you don't any ID to register, or vote, in many states. RobS#NeverHillary 19:52, 31 December 2016 (EST)
You're right, I stand corrected. I assumed that CA has the largest problems with illegal immigrants, partially because of its large I.I. population and its leftist politics. Other states such as West Virginia that also issue drivers licenses to illegals are quite different in other respects. Unfortunately voter ID laws are called "racist" and etc. by leftists and the courts they control. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2016 (EST)
Nationally, Trump in 2016 got 3 percent more votes than Romney got in 2012. In California, it was 4.5 million for Trump, 4.8 million for Romney. That's 460,000 missing California Republicans. If there had been a contested race in California, they might have shown up. PeterKa (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2016 (EST)
The Michigan recount revealed 60% of Detroit precincts had more votes than registered voters or inhabitants. No wonder the courts shut it down before it became it became a scandal. RobS#NeverHillary 07:20, 1 January 2017 (EST)

Conservative News and Views ISIS Article

Conservapedia linking to an article accusing the U.S. Government of funding/supporting ISIS as though that's a totally reasonable assertion... MatthewT (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2016 (EST)

ISIS is the only thing preventing Iran from establishing a Mediteranean seaport or marching on Saudi Arabia to retake Mecca from the takfir Saudis. But hey, this was Obama and Hillary's policy after they allowed Iraq and Syria to collapse. What are you complaining about? RobS#NeverHillary 19:27, 31 December 2016 (EST)

Nothing says "Happy New Year" like a Trump-Rooster

In China, 2017 is the year of rooster. So there's a lot to crow about. For example, a giant statue was erected in Shanxi Province that depicts Trump as a zodiac rooster. See "Ginormous Trump Rooster Statue Erected in Taiyuan" and "Giant rooster statue in China looks like Donald Trump." PeterKa (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2016 (EST)

Infowars debunks WaPo's fake news

When liberals can't get enough confrontation with Russia, they make it up: "Washington Post stirs fear after false report of power grid hack by Russia." It's yet another chapter in WaPo`s long and illustrious history of promoting fake news. The paper created the Valerie Plame affair back in 2003 by falsely claiming that Karl Rove leaked her name. The media bayed for the blood of "the leaker," as he came to be called. It turned out the leaker was actually Richard Armitage, Powell's deputy. Powell was a liberal hero, so Armitage got a pass. Plame's name was in Who's Who, so it wasn't much of a secret to begin with. PeterKa (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2017 (EST)

WaPo is little more than a CIA mouthpiece now. As it long has practiced externally, the CIA purchases a newspaper (like La Prensa in Central America) to shape its version of news to convert the masses to its policy perspectives. RobS#NeverHillary 07:14, 1 January 2017 (EST)

The October 1968 surprise revisited

The New York Times still has Nixon to kick around: "Nixon's Vietnam Treachery." This article recycles the old claim that Johnson was on the brink of a Vietnam breakthrough in October 1968, only to see it tragically nipped in the bud by Nixon. How dumb do they think we are? This was the original October surprise, a fake breakthrough designed derail the Nixon campaign immediately before the 1968 election. It had nothing to do with Vietnam and everything to do with getting Humphrey elected. The article does include this disclaimer: "Of course, there’s no guarantee that, absent Nixon, talks would have proceeded, let alone ended the war." No kidding. PeterKa (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2017 (EST)

Moral "high ground"

By believing that their leftist policies are the only acceptable view and calling anybody who disagrees (primarily conservatives and biblical or socially conservative Christians) a bigot or etc., the Dems are destroying themselves.[9] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2017 (EST)

I hope so, but they still have a powerful grip, especially on children and teens. Thankfully, enough people are waking up to this foolishness and pushing back that we're making progress--at least for now. --David B (TALK) 13:40, 3 January 2017 (EST)
Where the Democrats are concerned, their "moral high ground" is non-existent. For what it's worth. they couldn't even care less about morals or morality. Northwest (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2017 (EST)

White House report on Russian hacking debunked

The Joint Analysis Report that Obama used as a basis to sanction Russia and expel diplomats is a bust. So says Ars Technica: "White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election." Here's is the money quote: "The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." AT itself has shown that Guccifer 2.0 is almost certainly a Russian speaker.[10] But what about the WikiLeaks revelations that repeatedly snagged headlines during the campaign? U.S. intelligence has no clue as to where that data came from.[11] Some of the most damaging revelations were about how the DNC stacked the deck against Bernie. So the data could easily have come from a Bernie bro and/or DNC insider. PeterKa (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2017 (EST)

Here is the best argument that Russia did not hack the election for Trump: They would be shooting themselves in the foot. Trump's energy policy is Putin's nightmare. He could double U.S. oil production and put Gazprom out of business. See "Our Frackers Beat Their Hackers." PeterKa (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2017 (EST)
What a farce, listening to Democrats express their love and admiration for the CIA. Talk about "fake news". RobS#NeverHillary 19:47, 5 January 2017 (EST)
The Department of Homeland Security has attached an unprecidented "as is" label to this report.[12] In other words, the JAR is being treated the way a store might treat a defective product. Get this: the FBI never examined the DNC's servers. The DNC says that the FBI never requested access. As for the FBI, they claim they, "repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated.” So either the FBI is the electronic Keystone Kops, or the DNC willfully destroyed evidence. The idea that the hacker was an insider looks more plausible all the time. PeterKa (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2017 (EST)
After the WMD fiasco, the disclaimer is the lawyers talking to protect civil servents jobs, a sign really how politicized the US intelligence community has become. Keeping tbeir jobs and benefits is more of a priority than made-to-order intelligence reports Congress or the administration requests. RobS#NeverHillary 09:38, 6 January 2017 (EST)

"Trump tweets his criticism of a self-serving amendment sought by the House"

I don't know much about this "independent ethics panel" but if the Democrats were against the movement, might there be a reason why this should have passed? From my standpoint of very little background information on this, it sounds like Trump helped the democrats. --David B (TALK) 13:34, 3 January 2017 (EST)

You raise a good point. But the House is not conservative, and unfortunately has a pattern of just helping themselves rather than advancing the cause. Trump's primarily criticism was how the House was acting first to help itself, rather than addressing massive problems confronting our Nation first.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2017 (EST)
They were allowing anonymous tipsters to kickoff investigstions. Who in politics doesn't have enemies who like to tie an opponent in knots with bogus allegations? RobS#NeverHillary 09:31, 4 January 2017 (EST)
Okay, you both make a good point. RobS, you're right--that could get very problematic. They probably would have used it against Trump and all other incoming conservatives as much as they could have. Still, it's interesting that the democrats opposed it. Do you suppose they were afraid it would bring out some of their own dirty laundry as well? --David B (TALK) 11:00, 4 January 2017 (EST)
A Congress's first order of business after election of officers is to vote on rules. There probably is a way to get the same 'reform', such that it is, in through an amendment to the rules later burried under a stack of other legis!ation, or under the Committee's own rules, or even as an unwritten policy. The objection here was timing, how this rules change dominated the news cycle and headlines. Republicans still have not mastered the PR game of manipulsting news reporting and headlines the way Clintonites and Democrats have. And the House Ethics Committee's oversite only applies to members of the House, not the Senate which has its own rules, or Trump whose in a separate co-equal branch of government. RobS#NeverHillary 20:01, 5 January 2017 (EST)
Not to drone on, but this is why Comgressional debates on every piece of legislation consist of exhaustive debates over "regular order" or a "motion to attach" an amendment. For instance, McConnell's big objection to Reid was over "regular order" which allows any member to attach amendments to bills. Reid's suspension of "regular order", "suspending the rules", operating under "special rules", in news reports is called "anti-filibuster legislation". Ted Cruz exhaustively explained how he attached an amendment to an immigration bill which contained a "poison pill" nullifying the entire legislation package. Then he can tell voters he both voted for immigration reform and authored legislation to oppose it. Make no mistake, this ethics change to rules will take place, the Democrats are just guilty of a cheapshot to grab headlines, which is the only way they can operate at the moment. RobS#NeverHillary 20:30, 5 January 2017 (EST)

Donald Trump achievements

I created Donald Trump achievements, which lists any successes (or failures) for Trump in bringing positive, conservative change to the U.S. Are there any other examples that can be added so far? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Self-introduction: Lord Zedd

Thought it'd only be appropriate to introduced myself. I go by the username Lord Zedd, although that is far from my only alias used online. I'm new to Conservapedia, though I've been an editor for some time on Wikipedia. I'm very interested in the influence of politics on everyday life and look forward to contributing information to this site, and hope to discuss a variety of topics with fellow users in a thoughtful and intellectual manner. Sincerely, Lord Zedd

Good luck. RobS#NeverHillary 22:23, 5 January 2017 (EST)

Mr Obama, tear down this wall!

Obama's DC house is getting a wall. It's a really thick wall too, like he's expecting the Goths to bring battering rams. Check it out: "President Obama Builds a Wall for Rental House." It's in the same neighborhood as the house Ivanka just bought. PeterKa (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2017 (EST)

Interesting how leftists want open national borders (actually, no borders as they want world government) but they try to secure their personal borders. The same hypocrisy is clear in gun control and school choice matters. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2017 (EST)

Would someone PLEASE update this map?

This is probably the 4th time I've asked, I believe. Now that Congress has made the electoral results official,[13] would someone please update File:ElectoralCollege2016.jpg? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2017 (EST)

I replaced it with an updated map. Conservative (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2017 (EST)
Thank you Conservative, but would you please invert the GOP-red, Dem-blue color scheme? I would have uploaded that same map, but to be consistent with previous maps, the colors should be changed. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2017 (EST)
Although I could learn how to implement your request. I don't know how to implement your request. More importantly, the general public generally associates "red states" with Republican states and "blue states" with Democrat states. As a result. I am going to keep it the way it is.
I am not saying this to be difficult, I just think it makes a lot of sense to have the map be instantly interpreted by the largest segment of the American public. Conservative (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2017 (EST)
If no one wants to change the map colors, than I guess it will stay as it is and I'll accept it. However, changing the colors would still be nice, as it would conform the map to other electoral maps (1980, 1984, and Civil War era) that we have. Also, changing the map would show readers even at a first glance that our article is not a copy of the Wikipedia article. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2017 (EST)
It makes sense, but I think that battle has already been lost. No one pushed back hard enough, and now doing this would probably just confuse readers. I'm not against the change, but I don't know if it is worthwhile. --David B (TALK) 09:50, 9 January 2017 (EST)
I guess so. I just wish someone told me that earlier so I didn't have to write 5-or-so different requests about this with no response. I even messaged the editor who originally uploaded the map to update it with the final electoral tally but got no response. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2017 (EST)
Hmm... I should have been more clear with my response. The battle I was referring to was the change of party colors, perpetrated by the media. My intention was to say that I think Republicans have already given in and accepted red, even though it was not their color. Therefore, changing the colors we use back to the original colors would probably just confuse readers. However, your understanding of my response is probably also true. It does seem like no response is considered a "no" here. --David B (TALK) 14:59, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Israel gets back at UN

Israel withdrew its UN dues yesterday.[14] Hopefully the U.S. will do the same soon, and hopefully Trump will move the embassy to Jerusalem as he's promised.

P.S.--Would someone please update the Electoral College map above? The results are completely certified, and it must be updated. I cannot do it myself because I don't know of a free version that follows the GOP-blue and Dem-red color scheme. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2017 (EST)

The rumor is, if the US were to withdraw its funding of the UN, Trump may be interested in the property to convert to a Trump Hotel. RobS#NeverHillary 10:09, 8 January 2017 (EST)
For multiple reasons, a hotel would be a better use than what we have now. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (EST)

Former conservative of the year turns RINO

Until I read the main page In the News items [15], I thought that I was the only one here that noticed—Gov. John Kasich has been doing some strange things.

First he broke his pledge to support the primary winner, then I think I remember that he tried to run against Trump, and then he wouldn't speak at—or even attend—the Republican National Convention in his own state. Also Trump announced during the general election campaign that he was stopping his collaboration with the Ohio Republican Party, which was strange considering the party in Ohio would ordinarily be supposed to have provided much needed help in winning that crucial swing state. And now we learn Gov. Kasich was backing that same Ohio Republican Party in a dispute.

I guess it's official—Gov. John Kasich is not much of a conservative anymore.

VargasMilan (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2017 (EST)

I knew nothing about him when he was nominated, but I was hearing from some people that he was a RINO. I wish they weren't right, but it seems they were. I thought it was just because I was watching him in that light that some of his actions seemed suspicious--perhaps it was more than that after all. Why do so many people put on a conservative face when they are not? It is just that they know it's easier to win that way? --David B (TALK) 02:01, 9 January 2017 (EST)
Kasich is a Soros tool, according to Breitbart.[16] It's the same deal as with Jon Huntsman, who ran for president as an Obama toady in 2012. Both men had been conservative governors. But on the presidential campaign trail they played the liberal, especially in debates. PeterKa (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2017 (EST)
You have to keep these news reports in perspective. $200,000 out of $2,500,000+ is not much if you have about the same amount spent on your behalf by the political action committees.
That is unless those political action committees are also pro-amnesty. Sen. Joni Ernst launched her Senate bid with $5 million in contributions and $5 million in PAC support. It was the pro-amnesty United States Chamber of Commerce, who have a name like they are part of the U.S. Government but are actually a private association, who spent $3,000,000 in independent, non-coordinated support of her campaign. When Sen. Ernst runs for a second term will that $3 million be there again? You can't say that's not what's going through her mind.
What is the connection between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with the conservative-sounding name, and the left-wing icon George Soros? Global elitism. In the end Sen. Ernst supported Sen. Marco Rubio for President, who earlier tried to sneak in amnesty legislation under cover of a bi-partisan compromise committee known as the Gang-of-Eight. VargasMilan (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2017 (EST)
VargasMilan, you were not the only one who noticed Kasich's RINO actions. I have opposed and disliked him since 2014, when I heard he supported Matt Borges (who worked for a homosexual group) over a Tea Party candidate for the Ohio GOP chairmanship. My opposition for him grew in 2015 and 2016 during the GOP primary when he made statements that we should "move on" on issues such as homosexual "marriage" (a terrible, weak, and defeatist strategy that only opens the door for retreating on other important issues in the present and future). He sounded like a RINO this whole time, and if he is ever elected president, I think we would advance the leftist agenda more than conservative, Christian values. I'm glad he didn't win the primary or general election. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2017 (EST)
Kasich voted for McCain as president.[17] To vote for someone no else in the country is voting for misses the point of democracy. Why not write himself in? His candidacy kept the anti-Trump vote from uniting behind Cruz. So it seemed like he wanted to be Trump's running mate. But then he turned down Trump's offer. Perhaps he was hoping for an ambassadorship in the Hillary administration. Huntsman was Obama's ambassador to China. PeterKa (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2017 (EST)
In the case of a donor like Soros, you can't just look at the maximum amount Soros and his immediate family give to a candidate and is public under FEC reporting. Soros is essentially a hedge fund manager of t h e r i c h e s t p e o p l e in the world. When he chooses to latch onto a candidate, there comes millions in donations from other sources without his name on it. RobS#NeverHillary 09:55, 10 January 2017 (EST)

<slow hand clap>You'll need folks like Kasich and McCain to rebuild the GOP brand after the Trump presidency ends in ignominy. Trump has essentially promised the white working class he can turn back the economic tide of globalisation. Good luck with that, like. He might make US heavy industry temporarily "profitable" again with protectionist tariffs and copious amounts of pork, but only at the cost of wrecking the economy in the long term.

I'm still amazed your blind hatred of Hillary allowed you all to vote for such an obviously non-conservative, non-Christian con man.</slow hand clap> JohnZ (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Firstly, it far more than blind hatred for Clinton--if you don't believe what is written here about her, check the references. Secondly, he may not be the best, but he is already making good progress (for example, he's not even president yet and he already has China--one of the strongest enemies of the U.S.--scared), and even if he were a banana-obsessed monkey, progress will still be made through his carefully planned out appointments for government positions. He wasn't my first choice, and I'm sure he has and will make mistakes, but when you compare him to Hillary he is the obvious choice. Don't be fooled by her warm words and friendly demeanor--she is thoroughly corrupt and has already harmed this nation. --David B (TALK) 18:22, 9 January 2017 (EST)
John Z, DavidB4 is right. Clinton's political views and her ethics are clear reasons why nobody should vote for her, much less elect her. And yes, Trump has already made much progress already, at least for a president-elect. I created the article Donald Trump achievements, which already has several achievements.
Additionally, who says that Trump will be a failure? He hasn't even been sworn in as president. He could very likely (and I am inclined to believe it) be one of the most successful presidents in U.S. history.
One more thing: McCain and Kasich cannot do any good to the party. They are RINOs, and if they become the leaders of the party, they will concede a lot to the leftists who have already made big gains in several areas, including the courts and the culture (remember, Kasich says we should "move on" on homosexual "marriage", and I don't see why he wouldn't say the same thing on other very important issues). If Kasich and McCain are able to "rebuild" the GOP (size-wise) and have it abandon its conservative views (which many party-politicians already reject, at least in part), it will actually be a ruination of the party and its support for conservative (aka. common sense) principles. Trump is obviously not perfect (no one is), but I trust him much more than Kasich to enact real conservative change. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2017 (EST)
I give him a couple of years. Hubris and greed will likely prevent him from properly disclosing / divesting his business holdings, and that leaves him a sitting duck for impeachment proceedings once his approval ratings start to slide. I look forward to hearing plenty from you all in the not-too-distant future about Pence, the real conservative who'll make America great again ... once you've gotten rid of that corrupt, lying RINO, Trump. JohnZ (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2017 (EST)
If you believe what the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC tell you, that is - which I don't. On the other hand, Obama, Hillary and every other Democrat now in public service, as well as the liberal media, have shown themselves over time as the corrupt and lying ones. Northwest (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2017 (EST)
@JohnZ, by the time what you say comes to pass, Kasich and McCain will be long gone (interesting how McCain has gone from being liberal darling to Hitler's ghost to liberal darling again). As the recent debt-ceiling debate shows, a revitalized GOP would be led by Gen X'ers and Millenials more of the libertarian stripe. But I don't see traditional Democratic Midwest rust belt blue collar working class/deplorable racists returning to the Democratic fold anytime soon. RobS#NeverHillary 10:08, 10 January 2017 (EST)
They don't have to return to the fold. Staying sullenly at home on election day because of Trump's failure to revive their rust belt towns would be more than sufficient.
So I suppose the question is this: just how much pork is a conservative such as yourself prepared to see doled out to keep the rust belt believing in the Donald? How much more are you prepared to pay, say, for your electronic goods and clothing if Trump starts a Buy American, tariff-led trade war?
Awkward economic realities such as these are one of the primary reasons why long-serving populists are nearly always authoritarians. <cough>Putin.</cough> They make a whole heap of promises they can't possibly keep, and decide against ever risking another fair fight at the ballot box.
Populists forced to play by the electoral rules rarely manage to fool the people twice. JohnZ (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Right to work legislation in 27 states now keeps the unions in check, who caused the stagflation, income disparities, and overseas job flight in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. So it's a different set of rules now. If unions return to the 'screw-your-fellow-countymen' mentality I witnessed and experience first hand growing up and had to contend with as a young working age adult, I'll be first in line to revitalize the free trade movement. RobS#NeverHillary 17:49, 10 January 2017 (EST)
In 1979 I was working 60 hrs/wk at slightly above the minimum wage contending with 18% inflation & a 140% increase in gasoline prices. I showed up at the public library on my day off only to find the workers on strike for more of my money cause I wasn't working hard enough to pay them. I decided right there and then something had to be done about this disconnect between unionized labor, public employees, and the rest of us deplorable common scum. RobS#NeverHillary 18:11, 10 January 2017 (EST)
I personally know people, family, and friends who were involved in the 1983 Homel strike or the 1954-60 Kohler strike, and numerous other strikes throughout the the rust belt. The uniform consensus among participants and their descendants is that the unions themselves were responsible for the de-industrialization of America. A suicide of sorts among whole communities, for following the commie-rot of the Democratic party. Michael Moore, a fellow Midwesterner with his fingers on the pulse and ear close to the ground of the rust belt may be the sole exception (largely due to his seeking economic refugee status in Hollywood). RobS#NeverHillary 19:00, 10 January 2017 (EST)


Sorry - couldn't resist. Seriously, though, how much pork will you happily watch Trump dole out? There's a lot of folks who are / were employed in heavy industry and manufacturing who (quite understandably) took home the message that Trump has promised to save / restore their jobs.
You know as well as me that US will never be able to compete on unit labour costs with the likes of China and Mexico. So it's either: a) massive subsidies; b) ruinous tariffs; or c) a crucial chunk of the electorate left horribly disillusioned with Trump and the GOP. Take your pick. JohnZ (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2017 (EST)
So in other words, you're essentially accusing Trump and his incoming administration (which haven't even been inaugurated yet) of what the Democrats (particularly Obama and Hillary) have been guilty of doing themselves? That's not only jumping the gun, but hypocritical. Northwest (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Wut? Go lie down and remember to breathe. I worry you might not be steady on your feet at the moment. JohnZ (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2017 (EST)
So that's your response to the truth, huh? A classic case of Alinskyism from a liberal. Northwest (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Truth is an ambitious claim for something I'm struggling to even parse. Nowt wrong with ambition, though. Try again when suitably calm and sober? JohnZ (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Which sounds a lot like what really applies in your case (sobering up and calming down, which liberals like you need to do a lot more of). As for truth, that's something liberals like you have shown you care less than nothing about (while proving our articles about your type right every single time). Northwest (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Seriously: try again. Read what I've written carefully and set your thoughts out clearly. Last chance. JohnZ (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Take your own advice. Northwest (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Trump hi-jacked not only the GOP, but the Third Industrial Revolution as well. In 1981, libs said Reagan's attempt to revitalized the economy couldn't happen as well; of coarse no one foresaw the birth of new industries in CDs, VCRs, cell phones, personal computers, DVDs, flat screens, microchips, etc etc etc. And what manufacturing jobs American companies created they shipped to Mexico and overseas because of a high corporate tax rate, high labor costs, and free trade agreements.
Free trade agreements have served their purpose, to give the Third World a hand up and make them less vulnerable to communist agitprop. The pendelum is now swinging back toward equilibrium. RobS#NeverHillary 19:52, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Tariffs it is, then. Bound to end well. JohnZ (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Free trade was a reaction against the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which was blamed for the Depression. See "Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression?" Milton Friedman later showed the Depression caused primarily by the Federal Reserve's currency manipulation. (The Fed was paranoid about hyperinflation, which had hit Germany and France earlier.) But Smoot-Hawley certainly didn't help. As late as the 1980s, every economic event was immediately compared to the Depression. So this issue was on people's minds for a very long time. PeterKa (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2017 (EST)
There's a differnce between tariffs and a tariff war, a relatively stable environment where trading partners each have their own protected industries (not unlike existing 'free trade' agreements), and quid pro quos where nations needlessly react and reciprocrate, often to their own detriment, to exclusions of their principal exports. The US has primarily only two major exports: high dollar defense weapons and aircraft (with governments being the biggest customers), and agricultural foodstuffs. Foreign defense customers can't really blackmail the US in what is already a highly regulated export industry, and customers in need of foodstuffs aren't going to starve their populations further by refusing to buy cheap US food exports.
Even for what Trump is talking about reviving US manufacturing, like cars and clothing, the US still will be dependent on imports for years to come. Trump just wants a portion of our own domestic market back. RobS#NeverHillary 10:11, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Perhaps. But there's plenty of Trump voters in, say, the old coal and steel towns who took something altogether different from his impressively non-specific campaign bluster. They're the folks you need to worry about staying at home in 2020, and possibly even as early as the mid-terms. They think he's going to save / restore their jobs, and they're likely to be awfully angry when they find out otherwise. JohnZ (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (EST)
The US is the worlds biggest producer of coal and has the most reserves. Chinese demand is insatiable, consuming half of world production. Given that, why does Obama import coal for from Columbia? Trust me, this is high on Trump's ToDo list. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 22:10, 11 January 2017 (EST)
F.Y.I. The US coal industry is screwed. JohnZ (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (EST)
0k, so I had the Chinese production figures wrong, but still has limited domestic supplies in relation to Europe & N. America. These reports say US coal production has slowed due to cost, of which two factors: EPA regulation and wages. Both are controlable. Secondly, the Chinese growth boom in steel (which requires coal) has peaked. That means Chinese demand will shrink, not disappear. Further, as China enters a secondary, more mature level of economic development, demand will shift elsewhere to other less developed markets wanting to follow China's example of growth. Finally, there still is no excuse for the US to import coal; the Columbian imports mean lower cost of electricity production, but not lower rates for consumers. A perfect example of corporate cronyism that results in American job loss. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:44, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Stop. Betting on a continuing export boom tanked a lot of mining companies, but even at its peak, >95% of US coal was still burned in the US. It's the effect of shale gas on domestic demand that's really throttling the industry.

Imports represent <1% of annual production, so blocking them would be a token gesture for the most marginal of marginal gains. Even if it plays well on the evening news (or Twitter), it won't fulfil the promises people believe they heard on the campaign trail. JohnZ (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, why is it possible for Germany and Switzerland to have robust economies, a high standard of living and trade surpluses? Why can't the United States do the same?
Isn't one way for the United States to reduce its trade deficit to buy less stuff and invest more? Compared to Europeans and people from other countries, Americans buy a lot of unnecessary stuff. [18]
Isn't the high corporate tax rate a key contributor to American companies operating overseas? Isn't Trump planning on reducing the corporate tax rate? Conservative (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2017 (EST)
I'll concede the point on W. Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Ohio coal miners expectations, but this isn't to say there will be no positive change in coal miners going back to work or, that their expectations are entirely unrealistic. Secondly, job gains in fracking (which I think is what you refer to as shale oil production) is a domestic trade-off: coal miners job loss offset by fracking job creation, neither being a loss to foreign competition. (Translation:"worker re-training" means you gotta tell a 25 year old Kentucky coal miner whose granddaddy worked in the coal mines he has got to move to Oklahoma and get involved in fracking if he wants to keep working. I think coal mining families know this). RobSMake Exxon Great Again
America's long history of trade surpluses is possible because the dollar itself is an export. Other nations only wish their currencies were as highly regarded. PeterKa (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (EST)
The US hasn't had a trade surplus since 1967. Basically, loans from the Marshall Plan had been repaid and the US became dependent on foreign oil imports. Interesting, Wikipedia says of the Marshall Plan,
"The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism",
supporting my contention the free trade movement of the 1980s-90s, like NAFTA, was an anti-communist, anti-Soviet measure which has now outlived its original purpose and usefulness. By the 1980s NAFTA was intended to make the US & Mexico competative with the EU, which had already done away with trade barriers; the Soviet Union & Cuba were already fomenting revolution in El Savador & Nicaragua, and Mexico was where everyone's 'eyes on the prize' were. But the Soviet Union collapsed to suddenly while NAFTA's wheels were in motion. As many in the EU also are discovering, viewing free trade as an end in itself and a permanent solution was a mistake. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 10:33, 14 January 2017 (EST)

Given the rapid advancements in robotics being made, the issue of substantial increases in jobs being created through manufacturing increases could become somewhat less of an issue or far less of an issue. See: Robots replacing human factory workers at faster pace and Robotics technology trends. Conservative (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2017 (EST)

Yes and no. The work of 200 in the 1970s can be performed by 20 now - but, depending how much capital investment is made. Here's where tax laws and trade agreements can be manipulated to favor big business over mom n' pop - or vice versa. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 00:52, 15 January 2017 (EST)

Who didn't hack Podesta's account?

As the MSM recycles its old DNC hacking stories, don't forget this one: "Podesta’s Twitter, new email hacked by 4chan users." It wasn't just email and Twitter either. His iTunes account was hacked too: "Redditors claim the hacker changed details in Podesta’s iTunes account, requested to have Mormons visit his house and tracked his location via his phone’s GPS." Just think, if the election had gone the other way, this boob would be steering cybersecurity policy. PeterKa (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2017 (EST)

The great rhino escape

As I understand it, their names were Kasich, McCain, and Susan Collins: "The Great Escape! Rhino Escapes with pals from Zoo past Sleeping Security Guard." PeterKa (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (EST)

uhh, the RINO Susan Collins, respected by Democratic Senators, introduced Jeff Sessions at the hearings. We'll see how many Democratic Senators she picked up at the final tally. In fact, it would be foolhearty for a Democrat to oppose a Trump nominee right now: they have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so, and everything to gain by supporting the President early.RobS#NeverHillary 00:08, 11 January 2017 (EST)
The three may have been Mitt Romney, Colin Powell, and George H. W. Bush. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Woe, conservatives are hot!

"The researchers also suggest that voters correctly see candidates who are more good looking as more likely to be conservative," according to "Conservatives really are better looking, research says" in the Washington Post. PeterKa (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (EST)

...Any excuse for why conservatives might be winning other than their political ideals. They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. --David B (TALK) 10:34, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Another attempt to discredit conservatives and Republican voters as dumb(?): "The researchers found that Republican voters care more about appearance than Democratic voters do, but only if the voters don't have much information about the candidates and have to rely largely on appearance..." --1990'sguy (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2017 (EST)
To be fair, even relying largely on appearance is still better than literally nothing at all. The girls who fell in love with Sartre even when he cruelly tossed them out as garbage after stealing their virginity pretty obviously didn't rely on his physical appearance considering how he was ugly by even his own admission, so there's that to be said. Still, the left-wing media is going to put this up as a reason we Conservatives don't deserve any credit, as usual. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2017 (EST)

1 Samuel 16:7 --DHouser (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Exactly, and we conservatives vote for candidates based on their beliefs rather than their looks. However, I guess it's true that conservatives do look better than liberals. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2017 (EST)
That is entirely the correct response, DHouser. 1990'sguy, that may sometimes be true, but would you say Trump is more "good looking" than Hillery, with her makeup, wig, and million-dollar smile? It does go both ways. --David B (TALK) 14:10, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Watched all 3:46 of this last nite. It's true, Hillary does not appear as attractive in the presence of her husband as without him. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 14:51, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Hillary and Trump were both very well known before the campaign started, so this effect wouldn't apply to them. Rubio was 2016's pretty boy. PeterKa (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Personally, I think Trump looks much better than Clinton does. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Global warming

I just completed a major revamp of the global warming article. I'm especially pleased with the sections I wrote on "Sagan and Venus" and "Climategate." The old version emphasized "the pause," focused on the 2008 election, and also included an undetected hoax. (Thanks VargasMilan!) After adjustments to the data made in March 2016, the pause has disappeared from the various temperature records. I got a lot of ideas from Roy Spencer's site. He's a keeper of the satellite data, so it's harder to accuse him of being a fringe figure. PeterKa (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2017 (EST)

In The News typo

In the latest entry, "Donald Trump summed up his press conference..." there seems to be a typo. It says, "...people truly get what's going on." Trumped added: 'CNN is in a total meltdown...'" That doesn't make sense, so I assume spell check, voice recognition, or some other such thing assumed incorrectly that was the meaning. --David B (TALK) 14:07, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks! --David B (TALK) 15:42, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Where climate change goes to die

The climate change billionaires are furiously running ads against Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.[19] What's shocking is that these ads don't mention climate change. It's McCarthyite stuff about Tillerson's relationship with Putin and Russia. Did you know that when he was head of Exxon, Tillerson represented Exxon and not the United States? Everyone still pledges allegiance to the eco-nonsense, but it's clearly dead as far as Washington politics is concerned. The Millennials are perhaps the least liberal generation ever. Not only that, but their brand of liberalism is tied to the current lack of job opportunities. They grew up occupying Wall Street and demanding socialism. Trump will be the back-to-work administration. The Millennials will get jobs, spouses, and their own homes -- and forget about socialism. PeterKa (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2017 (EST)

I just unearthed the revelation Sweden's suicidal immigration policy is designed to reduce Sweden's carbon footprint. Now everything makes sense, why the government made the decision to set the country on an irretrievable path of becoming a Third World country. This is huge. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 00:59, 15 January 2017 (EST)

"Ethics" in the age of Obama

Walter M. Shaub got his position as director of the Office of Government Ethics by donating to Obama.[20] He's also a hyperpartisan with a track record of defending Hillary, that well-known model of ethics. A week ago, who even knew that such an office existed? For the last several days, Shaub has been making headlines lecturing Trump and his cabinet nominees on their various alleged ethical failings. “You don’t hear about ethics when things are going well. You’ve been hearing a lot about ethics lately,” he says. What an attitude, as if he was the high priest of ethics. PeterKa (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2017 (EST)

John Lewis

So why doesn't Atlanta congressman John Lewis think that Trump is a legitimate president? No, he doesn't mention the popular vote issue or any type of fraud. It's the Russkies: "I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."[21]. Hopefully, this is some sort of DNC talking point that he's regurgitating. If it's what he really thinks, its too moronic for words. Trump has nominated well-known Russia hawks to CIA (Pompeo) and to Defense (Mattis).[22] Even Tillerson denounced the occupation of Crimea at his confirmation hearing. Before the election, nobody expected Trump to win. (OK, I did.) I doubt Putin bets on people he thinks are going to lose. PeterKa (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2017 (EST)

It's their version of birtherism, an effort to delegitimize the president. But I don't recall sitting members of Congress in the GOP involved in the early birther movement, nor organized efforts to disrespect Obama on inauguration day. BLM is tasked with taking over the lead opposition role the Tea Party played, but this is probably a mistake. They need a larger, more diverse group not focused on narrow special interests like BLM. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 08:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)
It's all a smoke screen to divert attention from Trump's policy objectives. Remember when he said he'd build a wall and reform the VA? Democrats mainly responded by saying Trump hadn't given any details (although his website had so many details that I got bored and stopped studying it after 10 or 15 minutes).
The left doesn't want to have a debate about facts and ideas, when it can simply demonize their opponents and shut them up. Their problem now is that Trump won't stop tweeting! --Ed Poor Talk 11:03, 16 January 2017 (EST)
Trump's approval numbers go down every time he has one of these Twitter fights. Reagan had Pat Buchanan handle annoying people like Lewis. I was hoping that would be Bannon's job, but we haven't heard much from him lately. PeterKa (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (EST)
The determination of the lame stream media to milk this issue is having some amusing results: "Reporters Plead with MLK III to Attack Trump; Did Lewis Tweets Shake You 'To Your Core?'." Fortunately, King's son has some dignity: “in the heat of emotion, a lot of things get said on both sides.” PeterKa (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (EST)
Well, with the Clinton's defeat, Barack Obama now has a firmer grip and control of the Democratic party then he ever had. We see this in the appointment of a fellow Muslim, Elison, to run it, the lack of a big tent organization like the Tea Party to oppose Trump, the reliance on BLM to promote a message rejected by America, and John Lewis as the frontman to carry the message. Being relieved of the burdens office, Obama now can focus on one thing he does good: community organizing rable rousing. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 01:50, 17 January 2017 (EST)

Edit request

Would someone please add this to the article Secular Europe under a new header entitled "Growth of Swiss evangelical Protestantism"? The article is protected so I cannot edit it: [[Evangelical Christianity]] has seen large growth in [[Switzerland]] to the point that evangelical churchgoers outnumber mainline churchgoers 2-1.<ref>Kumar, Anugrah (December 5, 2011). [ Evangelical Churches Growing Fast in Switzerland]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved January 17, 2017.</ref> Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2017 (EST)

Another edit request: Would someone add the following info to the "Homosexuality Statistics - Percentage of Individuals Who Are Homosexuals" in the article Homosexuality:

Despite the fact that only 4.1% of the U.S. population identified as [[LGBT]],just over half a percentage point higher than four years prior,<ref>Gates, Gary J. (January 11, 2017). [ In US, More Adults Identifying as LGBT]. ''Gallup''. Retrieved January 18, 2017.</ref> Americans greatly overestimate the proportion of homosexuals in the nation to be an average of 23%.<ref name="GreatlyOver">Newport, Frank (May 21, 2015). [ Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.] ''Gallup''. Retrieved January 18, 2017.</ref> Interestingly, Republicans and conservatives gave estimates closest to the actual number.<ref name="GreatlyOver"/>

The "scandal free" administration

Jarrett and Obama are anxious to tell us how proud they are that, "this administration hasn’t had a scandal.” In a sense it is true. The Justice Department has never investigated any member of the administration. Ever. Truly amazing compared to any previous administration. But surely this is a measure of how corrupt and partisan the Obama DOJ is rather than something to boast about. After Lois Lerner took the fifth before Congress, she certainly should have been investigated. How is it OK to the blame the attack on the Benghazi mission solely on an innocent video maker and an imaginary "protest" -- not on the terrorists themselves and not on security lapses that allowed them to open the unlocked gate and stroll right in? Breitbart counts them down: "18 Major Scandals in Obama’s ‘Scandal-Free’ Presidency." PeterKa (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2017 (EST)

This is the 11th president I've seen in my lifetime, and the first who tried to brag and bolster a legacy of accomplishment, even before he was booted out the door. What's wrong with this picture? The closest the Reagan's did to shape Reagan's legacy was when Nancy Reagan, on the plane home the day they left office, was deny the claim Reagan slept thru cabinet meetings. Neither refuted the fake news reporting for eight years, and when they did it was Nancy who did it. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 07:46, 18 January 2017 (EST)

Olé! Olé! Olé! Atheist style!

Sigh, Ok, I'll bite. It is a great travesty that the "the MSM isn't fully covering" such an important news story featuring random Youtube videos from 2010, no wonder that have such a bad reputation. I thought Conservapedia was against fake news, but I guess "Not even" fake news is fair game. Feeling better now?--AaronC1 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2017 (EST)

The mocking of the godless commies was done on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 which is today. And unlike SNL which is vastly overrated and not funny (as per Donald Trump), the blog post was funny. Only a thin-skinned atheist who has a penchant for calling non-random things random would disagree!!!! Conservative (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2017 (EST)

One of the YouTube comments described the North Korean music as being produced by a "souless puppet".

It is widely recognized that atheists have more frequent issues when it comes to emotional intelligence (See: Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts and Atheism and suicide and Atheism and romance and Atheism and love and Atheism and inspiration). And even the food of many atheistic nations is often bland (see: Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food).

When I listen to latinos producing Spanish music and then listen to North Koreans try to produce the kind of music, the North Korean versions of the music does seem more bland and robotic.

Please see for yourself and I will let you be the judge:

This is yet another example of atheism producing inferior cultural achievements (see: Atheism and culture).

AaronC1, I hope this clarifies matters for you. Conservative (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (EST)

The videos you posted (all you posted) in your (not even fake) news story are dated Feb 28 2009, Dec 2 2010, May 3 2011, April 15 2012 and Nov 28 2015. The most recent being 14 months old and the oldest at nearly 8 years, case closed.--AaronC1 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2017 (EST)
I realize that SJWs/secular leftists always double down. Nevertheless, the blog post cited was published January 18, 2017 and it was a compendium of relevant videos.
By the way, have secular leftists formulated a plan yet to stop the shrinking in their global market share? See: Global atheism.
"The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us." - Professor Eric Kaufmann, Shall the religious inherit the earth? Conservative (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2017 (EST)
Thank you for the ad hominem answer, it proves to me that you cannot defend your position and you have to resort to personal attacks to maintain the illusion that you are correct. You seem to do that a lot.--AaronC1 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2017 (EST)