Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal bias

2007-08-01T18:25:10Z

9820:

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media. Although some prominent liberal journalists deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media, many have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).

The following persons, television programs or media outlets have commonly been accused of liberal bias.
* ''[[The New York Times]]''
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''?

Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]

CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

== Media Bias==

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

==Vision of the anointed==
Economist Thomas Sowell in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anninted'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciouness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary cultural wars, which are not about alternative policies but alternative worlds and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but morally lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or demonizing of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with campus speech codes and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of taboos. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that reality is optional.

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘living constitution’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of ideological crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==External links=

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

==See Also==
*[[Conservative bias]]

[[category:politics]]

MSM

2007-08-01T18:24:41Z

9820:

[[Conservative]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its perceived [[liberal bias]].

==Mainstream Media==
===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Liberal

2007-07-28T15:15:39Z

9820:

==Liberalism in the US today==
Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many Liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy Liberals in the US failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.

Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':

* removal of gender differences, such as treating men and women identically in the [[military]]
* [[abortion]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* reinstate the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms
* compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to an agressive American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*Freedom of speech
*Freedom of religion
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*Equal rights independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[DNC|DNC - Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[NEA|NEA - National Education Association]]
*[[NOW|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
[[Liberal hypocrisy]] 
[[Essay:Liberal Style]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Liberal

2007-07-28T15:14:50Z

9820:

==Liberalism in the US today==
Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many Liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy Liberals in the US failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.

Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':

* removal of gender differences, such as treating men and women identically in the [[military]]
* [[abortion]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* reinstate the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms
* compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to an agressive American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*Freedom of speech
*Freedom of religion
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*Equal rights independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[DNC|DNC - Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[NEA|NEA - National Education Association]]
*[[NOW|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
[[Liberal hypocrisy]] 
[[Essay:Liberal Style]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

MS NOW

2007-07-28T02:31:17Z

9820:

[[Image:April 2nd MSNBC.png|right|frame]]
'''MSNBC''' is a 24-hour cable news channel. It is the lowest rated of the three major cable news channels.

The channel was started in 1996 as a joint venture between [[Microsoft]] and [[NBC]]. On December 23, 2005, ending a partnership that soured long before, Microsoft and NBC announced that they would dissolve their joint ownership of the cable news channel, with NBC taking control. NBC completed a deal to assume majority control of the channel, with an 82 percent stake.[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30610F93E540C778EDDAB0994DD404482]

MSNBC has received criticism from both liberal and conservative groups regarding the channel's perceived biases. The conservative media watchdog group the Media Research Center<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp About Media Research Center] www.mediaresearch.org</ref> argues that MSNBC has a [[liberal]] slant, citing shows by [[Keith Olbermann]] and [[Chris Matthews]], while the liberal Media Matters for America<ref> [http://mediamatters.org/ Media Matters for America homepage] www.mediamatters.org</ref> decries the channel's alleged conservative slant, citing shows by [[Tucker Carlson]] and [[Joe Scarbourough]].

In the past, MSNBC shows have featured [[Mitch Albom]], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Phil Donahue]], [[Bill Moyers]], [[Maury Povich]], and [[Michael Savage]], among others. That varied programming was gradually reduced as NBC veered more [[leftist]] in its point-of-view.

In 2003, in an effort to appear more patriotic, MSNBC fired talk-show host [[Phil Donahue]]. An internal memo read, in part, "Donahue represents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time, our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." <ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/24/1446244]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html]</ref>

==External links==
* [http://msnbc.msn.com Official Site]
* [http://www.setstudio.com/pages/msnbc/ Photos of the MSNBC studio]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:broadcasting]]

Science

2007-07-28T00:23:32Z

9820:

Science, unlike other academic fields, is not just a body of knowledge but also a methodology for discovering and classifying knowledge. The scope of science encompasses all physical phenomena, but there is more for scientists to study than the material world and natural processes.

==See also==

*[[Natural science]]

[[category:science]]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-07-27T04:21:45Z

9820: /* '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' */

{{protect|TK}}

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Jinxmchue just cured my anemia with all that irony. --[[User:9820|9820]] 00:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a fairly racist POV you have expressed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*That is in fact more [[deceit]]. O'Reilly is registered Independent. All voting rolls are public record in the United States, and you should not be making such inaccurate, and possible trolling posts. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Bupkes

2007-07-27T04:19:02Z

9820:

'''Bupkes''' is a Yiddish term, short for goat droppings, which means a worthless amount. Producing "bupkes" means producing the least amount possible. This is often used in a pejorative sense to highlight how unproductive someone or an organization is.

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Nancy Pelosi

2007-07-25T01:19:48Z

9820: /* More to Add */

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps users might want to know ''when'' she was first elected, and how many terms she has served, and exactly where her district is.....there are several overlapping the city and county of San Francisco, I seem to remember. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would agree with this. Also, we need to look closely at campaign contributions she's given to other members of Congress; it appears with her $50-90 million net worth, she basically purchased the House leadership position by surrounding herself with people she contributed money to get them elected to the House in the first place. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Which see, all previous Speakers. It is germain, but hardly unusual. And nothing illegal about it. Newt and Tip O'Neil gave away millions. I did like your contributed picture better, Rob. I think it captured her true "inner beauty". --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Newt and them guys didn't have the personal wealth Pelosi has. While yes, some of these figures control donors and bring influence that way, I don't beleive there's been a Party leader in recent memory who purchased her way to the top with her own personal fortune as Pelosi has. And there is no other explanation, how a clearly radical figure who openly confesses to holding radical minority views has been able to assume leadership of not just a major party, but now the the majority party.

:::Let's put Pelosi's wealth in perspective; her net worth is approximately twice that of GW Bush & John Edwards who are worth roughly the same, and about half of John Kerry's sole-and separate fortune apart from Theresa.

:::Actually I had a better photo yesterday but lost it, still trying to find it. Amazing what a little bondo and $249 Earl Schieb paint job can do, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liam.... ==

I don't think a hit piece, without citation, even on one so deserving as Madame Speaker, is appropriate. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There are citations. I'll add a few more.

*Liam, sign your posts, please. Nothing on her being the first woman Speaker? I think "Criticism" should fall below the other items on the page, eh? I complain about the same things on Reagan, etc. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm writing more for the Pelosi page right now. And sorry I only just now learned how to sign my posts. --[[User:Go liam|Go liam]] 01:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Liam...you might want to check check wastingtonpost.com for Thursday's lead editorial..... --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==Quotation==
The current "quotation":''"The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."''

The actual quote:"When I accept the Speaker's gavel, I will be taking it out of the hands of the special interests and put it into the hands of America's working families and children for a better future. There will be civility, integrity and bipartisanship. We'll conduct ourselves in the manner the American people expect."[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/12/middle_class_ma.php]

*I am happy to see that Madame Speaker, aside from her foreign policy aspirations, also agrees, through word and deed (using non-union migrant workers at her winery), with the majority of Americans who are against labor unions. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== NY Post quote...fictitious and misleading... ==

The actual, full quote from the article follows....

<blockquote>
Pelosi actually chided the White House for not objecting to the visit to Damascus on Sunday by three GOP House members. "I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," she whined.

'''Actually, the White House did just that: "We ask that people not go on these trips," said spokeswoman Perrino. "We discourage it. Full stop."'''

'''Besides, even Pelosi must understand that there's a huge difference between three regular legislators calling on Assad and the Speaker of the House - arguably the highest-ranking Democrat in Congress - doing so.'''
As such, she is seen as the representative of the president's political opposition - one that desperately seeks to undercut and reverse his foreign policy.

More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.

Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.
</blockquote>

I have removed the quote.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hype==
*''Pelosi indicated at a press conference that she had carried a message from the government of Israel. She then said she carried a message from the President. <ref>http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801</ref> Both of her claims about message carrying were lies. Pelosi told reporters the meeting "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert". She may face criminal charges.''

This is a little hyperbolic, now. Whose gonna do it, one of the fired US Attorneys? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there are many who were not fired. And, last I checked, the Attorney General can perform all of their tasks, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yah but you know the chance of this happening is 1000 to one; you probably got better odd on somebody trying to introduce impeachment proceedings against Bush. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, do I detect some note of disapproval at political appointees being removed from "at the pleasure of" appointments? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Iglesia, the guy removed in New Mexico is a real scream. A week after he's removed, the new appointee indicts a former Democratic mayor and the former 30 year Democratic State Senate Majority Leader for embezzeling $4 million during constuction of a new Courthouse (see the irony there--even building a Courthouse is a corrupt enterprise in New Mexico). And of course $40,000 of the stolen cash ended up in Bill Richardson's campaign chest. Now considering the Courthouse has been in use now for nearly 5 years, how did this all manage to evade news headlines unitl the day after the US Attorney was removed? This one will be interesting to follow in Washington. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually brokered a interaction between a United States Senator and the Attorney for the San Diego area, where the Senator was demanding action on filing against Illegal Immigrants, which was not being done. The Senator actually contacted the White House wondering why this particular appointee was refusing to prosecute crimes, unless it was the 6th or so offense. Fast-forward several months, and this same Senator is one of the chief complainant's against the President, claiming the firings were unjustified and purely political! I wonder how one takes the "politics" out of political appointments? ROFL! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It's like Krauthammer said, Gonzales gets the boot after this screw up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== That stuff about Wolf, Pitts, and Aderholt ==

It appears that the inclusion of the info about those three congress members is disputed. I'm figuring its a matter of it detracting too much from Pelosi's account of the trip? I suppose that could be the case. It might fit better on the Syria page. Or is there another reason, maybe regarding the way I worded it? Because I could change that too.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 07:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*IMO, including the information about the three Republican Representatives is germain, so long as one explains the reason for the mild criticism they received was due to their relative minor stature, compared to the Speaker of the House, who is third in line to the Presidency. Also, they did not hold press conferences asserting they were the bearer of diplomatic messages. As stated, it erroneously gave the impression that 1) the White House didn't criticize their going, and 2) maybe because they were of the same political party, they received less heat. You might also google, and add a line their going wasn't something new, dozens of Members of Congress have visited there, much to the displeasure of the White House, including Senator Specter, another Republican. I might add they all got the same baloney words from the dictator. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**True; there is a big difference between a routine Congressional fact finding mission and (1) a stated aim ''prior'' to undermine US foreign policy (2) all the doggie doo Pelosi stepped in when carrying through her threats. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== WashPost Editorial ==

Um, you know, posting the WP editorial in its entirety probably goes beyond the bounds of "fair use" and into the land of copyright violation. Maybe it should be excerpted instead? (especially since it has a link to the full editorial for anyone who wants to read it...) --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*LOL. Sorry, it is fair game. But nice try. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I want to belabor the point, but reproducing a copyrighted work ''in full'' is almost certainly a violation.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, thanks for your concern. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As someone who has worked in the journalism industry, WJ Thomas is right. Fair use allows for reproducing a couple of paragraphs. You CANNOT reprint a editorial in full unless you have the express permission of the originiator of the material. Proper procedure online is to have a graph or two and then link to where the original material is located.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Indeed. For that matter, it's also a violation of CP's Commandments. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*We have actually been over this elsewhere. Most publications exempt their Editorials from the ususal. In this case I actually asked the Editor, before using it. Please try to be less imperious, it isn't friendly. As an Administrator here, I really don't need to be reminded of the Commandments, but I thank you for your dedication. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Photo==
You sure that photo was for the meeting with Assad? I thought it came from the Saudi leg of the trip, where she probably did run into more a traditional, conservative, fundemental Islamic society, in which case she is to be commended for taking her revolutionary ideological hat off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:The photo was taken while she visited a mosque in Syria.http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/04/content_843088.htm --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::So it's incorrect to say she was dressed to visit Assad? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Also, I thought women couldn't go into mosques? How does a non-beleiver get an exemptions? I guess it shows what a woman worth $90 million can purchase for herself, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently they can, as the article mentions other (Syrian) women inside the mosque. It also says that Pelosi visited a tomb said to contain the head of John the Baptist, which is interesting in that I didn't know such a place existed...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*As I said it, so it was. She met with Assad before or after the mosque deal. Please contact me Rob. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Article/photo of the Pelosi-Assad meeting (note lack of head covering): http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=34c601f1-6c22-4b09-af24-9786caa71bf9&k=25613--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I suggest you spend your time doing constructive edits and creating pages, rather than arguing items like this. Notice the same suit? Have you seen the photos of her arrival for the meeting? Leaving it? Have you gotten someone at the Speakers office to run it down for you? No. I didn't think so. I get suspcicious of people who stop to argue things like this. I hope I am wrong. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Not trying to be a pain, just trying to help make Conservapedia an accurate and trustworthy research tool. Meanwhile, I'm working on edits online and creating larger pages offline. And if you'd rather I just keep my mouth shut when I see errors, I can do that, too.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Well, I think you know the answer. Or should. Of course no one wants you to "just keep your mouth shut". Certain things I check out before I do them. Because of my access and background, I just pick up the phone and ask. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to if the Speaker was snapped entering or leaving the Mosque? No. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to exactly when the Speaker removed, wore again, and removed again, her scarf? No. Did the speaker, within a 24 hour period wear a scarf in difference to their religion, or hers? Yes. Does it bother me? No. I think it common courtesy if she did so. Is the press making itself look even more inane and marginalizing itself once again, in making this an issue? Yes. Is it silly for editors to pick at such things, merely because they self-identify as members of the press? Yes. As it wasn't that important, I did revert the copy attached to the picture. But when seeing several dozen such discussions in a day, is my patience and tact impacted to the negative side? Yes. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Legislation? Life before Congress? ==

Nothing. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Harry Hay==

Wait--so Pelosi is some sorta child-molester symp because she was in a parade that also happened to have some other old pervert? That's really really really weak, even for this place. (Double Wait--Grandpa Walton was gay???)--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 10:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:This isn't any old pervert, this is the widely recognized Granddaddy of the organized [[gay rights]] movement in the United States. And his longtime membership the [[CPUSA]] & NAMBLA is of historic interest to students of Progressive activism. The commonality of views with other Progressive leaders and activists such as Nancy Pelosi is not just incidental or coincidence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::I understand who H.H. is. What I'm saying is, his mere presence in the parade doesn't say anything (factual or otherwise) about Pelosi. If being in the same parade makes her a suspected commie and pedophile, it would also make commies and pedos out of Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448, all of whom were also in the parade along with Hay, Pelosi, and 175 or so other groups/individuals.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448 are not Speaker of the US House of Representatives, a Constiutional Office third in line of succession to the Presidency. And after Bush & Cheney get [[impeachment|impeached]], it will be too late to discover the politcal base of support that created Nancy Pelosi. Call it [[full disclosure]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

All righty, then. Of course, if that's the standard, perhaps you should add a NAMBLA disclosure to the Rudy Giuliani entry, 'cuz he's done the same thing (marched in "gay pride" parades with NAMBLA).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Giuliani marched with the "founder of the gay movement in America" [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm] in this cite compared with Thomas Jefferson, [[Emma Goldman]], and Rosa Parks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::Worse than that--he marched directly behind the NAMBLA float in NYC's gay pride parade, right past St. Pat's. And he's proud to be a supporter and honorary member of the Stonewall Vets Association (Stonewall being the riots that kicked the modern gay rights movement into high gear).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're still mixing apples and oranges. Harry Hay is the Rosa Parks of gay liberation, and you are discussing something entirely different. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::How is it entirely different? Pelosi appears in the same parade as a guy who's a gay liberation forefather and NAMBLA supporter (though not a member). Giuliani appears in a parade with a whole bunch of ''actual'' NAMBLA members, and joins up and hangs out repeatedly and proudly with a whole ''crowd'' of gay lib founders/activists (the Malcolm X's of the movement, if you will), and even rides on their float to lead the parade, and becomes an official member of their group to boot. If anything, Rudy's transgression (if we can call it that) is worse than Pelosi's...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::We don't know if Hay is a member or not. If NAMBLA has a whole series of his material on their website, who is in what position to who here? The history shows there would be no NAMBLA, i.e., an above ground organized movement, or as CPUSA members call it, the "open party" engaged in organizational and politcal activity. And it is absoltulely clear that NAMBLA does much more than advocate issues of "sexual freedom". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm not disputing that they're a bunch of lowlife sleazemeisters. I'm just saying that if it's wrong for Pelosi to associate with them, it's equally wrong for Giuliani (and that the same sort of informational disclosure should be in his entry here).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 15:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Let's see a cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Sure: "This year’s ("gay pride") parade, however, in one respect, was different. In the caravan marched the Republican candidate for mayor, Rudy Giuliani....Rudy marched just behind the float of the North-American Man-Boy Love Association." Patrick Buchanan, NYPost, 7/17/1993
:::::::::Buchanan plays the NAMBLA card again. I'll do a lexis-nexis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see, too, that the entry sez Pelosi marched "along with" Harry Hay. The cites show the parade lineup: Hay, then The SF LGBT Community Center Project, Team San Francisco (whatever that is), the San Francisco Fog Rugby Football Club (I'm bettin' that's some wild scrum!), "Healing Waters", and ''then'' Pelosi. Intentional or not, the sentence above makes it sounds like she was at Hay's side, hand in hand, when in reality it would seem that they wouldn't even have been able to see each other. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

This all sounds like character assassination.

==All Quarters==

A)"All quarters" implies conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats--Pelosi was criticized by one side (the right), not both/all. B)Yah, Murdoch's NYPost is conservative, the Washington Post editorial page has become increasingly conservative, and the Philadelphia Inquirer (note spelling) piece is not an editorial, but a commentary by a conservative columnist.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 22:38, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:No one as best I can determine defended Pelosi (no one other than her '''extreme''' liberal base). Even Pelosi backtracked. The cite says, "Our message was President Bush’s message". [http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801] What, pray tell, does this mean? Pelosi ''agrees'' with Bush's foreign policy? Pelosi was out promoting Bush's foreign policy? Of course she had to say it in Portugal, and not here, cause she'd be skewered by her own base for furthing Bush's efforts to destroy the planet and civilization as we know it. But she knew by the time she got to Portugal what a colossal farce this trip had been, and had to go on record somewhere disclaiming her actions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) Dems of all stripes defended Pelosi (not just the the "extreme liberal" ones), '''and''' some ''Republicans''(!) did, too. 2)"Our message was Bush's message" clearly means that Pelosi didn't say anything contrary to administration policy or to embarrass the president. Or, to phrase it another way, she and the president are on the same page. She continued, "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive." 3) She said this in Portugal not because she was trying to hide, but because that's where she was when the reporter reached her by telephone. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Gimme a cite ''after the Washington Post editorial was published'' of a Democrat (outside her base) that defended her. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::April 09, investment banker, respected diplomat, Council on Foreign Relations board member (including chairman of its Terrorism Task Force), semi-hawkish Dem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTNKwqXpoc --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 08:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==See Also?==

Maybe I'm missing something--what do Lorena Ochoa and Ségolène Royal have to do with Pelosi?--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I second the motion to remove. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*They could possibly be Democrats, who support Pelosi, however since there isn't any mention of them in the article, I think the editor, WJThomas, should possibly explain......--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gay Rights and Abortion==

Should these maybe be separate headings, or is the plan to tie them together somehow? It's a little confusing as it stands.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*She's a well known sodomite. All will reveal in good time. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. that seems a little harsh. Care to provide some information backing up that claim or are you just relying on character attacks? Gotta love the fairness of the sysops.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 18:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==My Most Humble Edits==

A new Pelosi paragraph shows up, and it has some issues—typos, grammar mistakes, unsupported factual assertions, incomplete information. I spend a few minutes cleaning it up, and doing so in a way that (I thought) was completely “fair and balanced”, as they say. But [[User:TK|TK]] reverts the whole enchilada with nary a how-do-you-do, and then locks the article as if I’m vandalizing or somesuch. So let’s go over said edits in the interest of full disclosure:

[[User:RobS|RobS]] wrote: “In may 2007 Pelosi stuck in a $25 million pork project that would benefit her rich husband, Paul Pelosi, in the Water Resources Development Act. The project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties near owned by Paul Pelosi and will significantly boost the property values.”
*I changed “may” to “May”, as proper nouns should be capitalized. No clue why that should be reverted.
*I added a comma after “2007”. Ditto.
*I added in the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran, which happens to be fact (according to the cited National Review article). The original sentence made it sound as if the earmark was completely Pelosi’s idea, which is not the case. Even assuming that Pelosi agreed to the request solely to increase her riches, it’s still a fact that it was not (apparently) her idea. To suggest otherwise is [[deceit]].
*I changed “pork project” to “earmark”. “Pork project” is a loaded term, a value judgement—one person’s pork project is another’s vital economic development—so I went with the more neutral “earmark”. In addition, the previous paragraph had already noted that “earmarks” are often a source of corruption, so the reader understands that “Pelosi’s earmark” may equal “corruption”.
*I added “Republicans charge” before “would benefit her rich husband”. “…''(W)ould'' benefit is a factual assertion, one that is impossible to support. “Republicans charge…” is more accurate (as that’s what’s going on here). I’d also accept “conservatives charge…”, or “some charge…”, or drop the “Republicans charge…” and change “would’ to “could”.
*I removed “rich” modifying “husband”, because A) it’s extraneous (we already know the Pelosis are rich), B) it’s irrelevant to the issue, C) it comes across as pejorative (is it wrong to be rich?).
*I added “$15billion” in front of the name of the bill, because that’s the size of the bill, and to give some sense of scale to the earmark.
*In the portion, “…project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties…”, I changed “near” to “only a mile”. “Near” is nebulous, unclear—how near is “near”? In this case, “near” is a mile or so. I first considered just “a mile”, but then added “only” to try to keep within the spirit of the original.
*Later in the same sentence, I also removed a second “near” that was clearly placed there in error (“…''near'' four separate commercial real estate properties ''near'' owned by Paul Pelosi.”—makes no sense). Again, no need to revert that.
*Changed “will” to “may” in, “will significantly boost the property values.” As above (see “would”), an unsupportable factual assertion.
*At the end of the paragraph, I changed “Pelosi’s” to “Pelosis” (plural, not possessive). Once again, no reason to revert spelling/grammar errors.

In addition, the article could/should note (if you want to make Pelosi sound more craven) that, A) the Pelosis increased their SF real estate holdings in December, perhaps in anticipation of her Speakership (and therefore the ability to get the previously-rejected earmark passed), and B) new House ethics rules (pushed by Pelosi) require sponsors of earmarks to sign a statement saying they will not personally benefit from said earmark (which Pelosi did), and that the nature of the controversy is “whether she acted properly when she certified that she had no financial interest in the waterfront redevelopment project, given the possibility, however speculative, that it could cause the value of her husband’s property to rise.” Both points are in the cited article, and would bring clarity to that section of the entry.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*''the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran''
:Going into the relationship between the mayor of San Fransisco & the San Fransisco's highest ranking member of its Congressional delegation may be somewhat extraneous, but it could be done if necessary.
*Pork is what is is.
*''Republicans charge''
:This is AP reporting; we are not AP.
*Given it is the rich responsible for all the worlds problems, from oppressing minimum wage workers to Halliburton starting the war in Iraq, this is an extremely important point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::*The Mayor/Pelosi relationship may be extraneous, but the fact that the Port and Mayor made the original request is not.
::*AP is '''reporting''' ''Republican charges''.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::That's right. We are not AP. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not picking up what you're throwing down...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re: “not one author” ==

Look at the article—how many authors does it have?
Now if you like your characterization better—that’s fine, but don’t try to justify your edits by mischaracterizing the facts. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:One man's earmark is another mans pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::I see three problems with this--
:::This is a total non sequitur and it fails to respond to my point. It even manages to be about a totally different edit.
:::The article says earmark—not pork—find an article that says pork and I won’t touch it, but since the author being used as an authority here chose to call it an earmark that’s what the article here should say.
:::Pork is spending for the sake of spending alone—like a bridge to no where—the article suggests that this spending is something that actually provide some real benefit, suggesting it is not actually pork (but see point two above, find a source that calls it pork, properly attribute it and I won’t complain)
::--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pork benefits the home state of district, depending if your Senator or House member. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still not responding to the substance of my post—and are not responding at all to the initial post.
::::Not all earmarks are pork. Pork is spending that is a benefit '''only''' to a representative’s district. If a representative comes from a district where they make Kevlar vests and he/she earmarks millions to buy vests from that factory for the military, it is an earmark and is not pork (assuming the military needs those vests). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::This goes beyond benefiting the district. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Then it isn’t pork.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So a conflict of interest that benefits the district can be aptly described as pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Any funding from the Federal level that benefits only the constituents of the Senator(s)/Representative(s) responsible for that funding can be fairly described as pork.
::::::I would say that whether or not there is a conflict of interest is irrelevant to determining if funding is pork or not (For example, a Representative could earmark $1 million to fund a museum to corn in his district, and that would be pork whether or not the Representative, or his family or friends, had any direct financial stake in the funding).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==More to Add ==
Hi. I have a couple of suggestions for this article (the page is locked so I can't do it myself). 1)Shortly after becoming speaker, Nancy demanded use of a bigger and better aircraft than Dennis Hastert had used. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070201-122225-1157r.htm 2)Some time back, Nancy was nailed by the FEC for campaign contribution violations of some sort (I don't recall the exact details, but I guess she was trying to buy friends in order to become Speaker, and apparently it worked).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:00, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Also, this:
<blockquote>
In a stunning rebuke to her leadership, and the anti-war movement, the House voted overwhelmingly 280-142 to continue building Iraqi democracy and counter the threat posed by Islamic extremists outside of U.S. territory rather than the cut and run strategy proposed by liberal anti-war activists.
</blockquote>
is biased. Can someone rephrase that?

== Bad editing. ==
I just noticed that someone corrected the spelling of San Francisco in this article, but it was reverted back to the improper spelling.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

United States Congress

2007-07-25T01:10:34Z

9820: /* Houses */

'''Congress''' is the term for the legislative body of the [[United States of America]].

==Origin==

The Congress of the United States was created in the first article of the [[Constitution]]<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1</ref>.

==Houses==
Congress is divided into two houses, the [[Senate]] and the [[House of Representatives]]. The Senate gives equal weight for each state, with each state electing 2 senators who serve 6 year terms. The House was originally proportioned based upon population, with each House member serving a 2 year term. The House and Senate must agree for [[legislation]] to be enacted. The [[President]] can [[veto]] that legislation which can then be overridden by a 2/3rds majority of both Houses of Congress.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:United States]]

Franklin D. Roosevelt

2007-07-24T23:04:28Z

9820:

{{Progress}}
 
{{President
|image=509px-FDR in 1933.jpg
|seq=32
|term_start=March 4, 1933
|term_end=April 12, 1945
|party=Democratic
|vp= John N. Garner
|vp_dates=1933-1941
|2vp=Henry A. Wallace
|2vp_dates=1941-1945
|3vp=Harry Truman
|3vp_dates=1945
|4vp=
|4vp_dates=
|previous=Herbert Hoover
|next=Harry Truman
|seq2=
|term2_start=
|term2_end=
|party2=
|vp2=
|vp2dates=
|2vp2=
|2vp2dates=
|3vp2=
|3vp2dates=
|4vp2=
|4vp2dates=
|previous2=
|next2=
|birth_date=January 30, 1882
|birth_place=Hyde Park, New York
|death_date=April 12, 1945
|death_place=Warm Springs, Georgia
|spouse=Eleanor Roosevelt
|spouse2=
|religion=Episcopalian
}}

'''Franklin Delano Roosevelt'''  was the 32nd president of the United States of America, following [[Herbert Hoover]] and preceding [[Harry Truman]]. Roosevelt was a member of the [[Democratic Party]]. He was elected four times and served a few months longer than 3 terms, from 1933-1945, the longest any one man has been president of the United States. He was elected amidst the uncertainty of the [[Great Depression]].

On April 12, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage, due partly to the crippling disease, [[polio]]myelitis, which physically disabled him during his presidency.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html</ref>

Although Mr. Roosevelt was very popular in his time, it has been argued by scholars and analysts then and now that many [[New Deal]] relief efforts actually helped to prolong the [[Great Depression]]. Mr. Roosevelt started the second wave of the massive expansion of the Federal Government and greatly increased American foreign aid. Some of these policies were viewed as necessary due to the incredibly high level of unemployment in the 1930s and later US involvement in WWII.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/printable.html</ref>.

== Reflections on Christianity ==

Franklin D. Roosevelt, commonly known as "FDR", said this about the Bible in an address on October 6, 1935:

*"We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the [[Bible]] has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic."

*"Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity."<ref>Quoted in DeMar, ''The Untold Story'', p. 60 and Gabrial Sivan, ''The Bible and Civilization'' (New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1973), p. 178.</ref>

FDR became famous for delivering "fireside chats" over the new medium of [[radio]], and on March 9, 1937 he declared:

*"I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again."

As [[World War II]] broke out in Europe, FDR warned:

*"Those forces hate [[Democracy]] and [[Christianity]] as two phases of the same civilization."

== Election of 1932 ==

== First Term ==

On November 16, 1933, when the Roosevelt administration granted diplomatic recognition to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet Union pledged itself to refrain "from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States." That occurred three weeks after the founding of the [[Comintern]] affiliated [[American League for Peace and Democracy]]. Other Comintern affiliates sprung up in the ensuing years, including the [[American Youth Congress]] in 1934 and the [[League of American Writers]] in 1935. [[NKVD]] officers traveled the country in the guise of diplomatic and consular officials, conducting [[espionage]] activities <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/10.gif Anonymous letter to Hoover], undated (received 7 August 1943), National Security Agency Venona Collection. "[[SEMENOV]] works in AMTORG, is robbing the whole of the war industry in America. SEMENOV has his agents in all the industrial towns of the U.S.A., in all aviation and chemical war factories and in big industries."</ref> freely and offering bribes. On 28 February 1934 Elliott Roosevelt, son of the President, and [[Anthony Fokker]] each received half a million dollars for selling fifty military aircraft to the Soviet government. <ref>John T. Flynn, ''The Roosevelt Myth'', (New York: Devin-Adair, 1948).</ref>

[[Harold Ware]] was a [[Communist Party USA]] (CPUSA) official in the federal government who founded the Washington D.C. group of United States government employees belonging to the underground network called the [[Ware group]]. The group had about 75 members in 1934 and was divided into about eight cells. The Ware group initially consisted of young lawyers and economists hired by the newly created [[Agricultural Adjustment Administration]] (AAA), a [[New Deal]] agency later found [[unconstitutional]] that reported to the Secretary of Agriculture but was independent of the Department of Agriculture bureaucracy. [[Alger Hiss]], [[Lee Pressman]], [[John Abt]], [[Charles Kramer]], [[Nathan Witt]], [[Henry Collins]], [[George Silverman]], [[Marion Bachrach]], [[John Herrmann]], [[Nathaniel Weyl]], [[Donald Hiss]] and [[Victor Perlo]] were all members. [[Harry Dexter White]], who became Director of the Division of Monetary Research in the [[Treasury Department]], also was affiliated with the group. The Ware group was the CPUSA's covert arm. Each of these agents not only provided classified documents to Soviet intelligence, but was involved in political influence operations as well.

By 1935 membership in labor unions had sunk to a low figure as a result of the depression. There were men around the President at this time that saw the tremendous possibilities of organizing labor as a political force. An industrial union is one in which all the people engaged in a single industry are included without regard to the type of skills at which they work. The industrial union was the one great instrument by which all labor could be organized and the President was urged to promote this idea as the starting point in building up a powerful political labor movement. There were three large industrial unions at that time, [[John L. Lewis]]’s [[United Mine Workers]] (UMW), the International Ladies Garment Workers Union of David Dubinsky and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of [[Sidney Hillman]].

Roosevelt tried to sell the plan to John L. Lewis of the UMW, and William Green, head of the American Federation of Labor (A.F. of L.). Green and the A. F. of L. opposed the idea of industrial unions and refused, but under the leadership of Lewis, a new group of unions was formed called the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The year 1936 was a period of furious organizing work by it among the unskilled workers of the country. As Lewis, Dubinsky, and Hillman set about organizing millions of workers they were immediately up against the problem of finding skilled organizers to promote and manage the new unions.

There had been in the United States a Communist labor organization known as the Trade Union Unity League which took its instructions directly from Moscow. It is estimated that ten or fifteen thousand Communists were in these unions. In 1934, Moscow directed the Communist party in the United States to dissolve the Trade Union Unity League unions and to march the members of those unions into the American Federation of Labor. The purpose was not to advance the cause of labor unions or to get better working conditions for the members, but to use the apparatus of the labor union as an instrument of revolution. The Communist leaders saw in the rise of the CIO a better opportunity for their own revolutionary objectives than in the A. F. of L. and instructed their members to withdraw from the A. F. of L. and go into the CIO.

Lewis was interested in bringing into existence industrial unions like his own, in which he had always believed. Roosevelt was interested in bringing into American labor unions as many voters as possible and in capturing their leadership to be used to build up a powerful labor faction which could control the Democratic party and which he and his allies could control through the vast power of the government and the vast powers of the labor leaders, along with the immense financial resources that so great a labor movement would have. The Communists were interested in getting into key positions as union officers, statisticians, economists, etc., in order to utilize the apparatus of the unions to promote the cause of revolution.

== Second Term ==

{{Cquote|Planning will become a function of the federal government; either that or the planning agency will supersede the government, which is why, of course, such a scheme will be assimilated to the State. <ref>''The Principle of Planning and the Institution of Laissez Faire,'' Rexford G. Tugwell, The American Economic Review, vol. 22, no. 1, March 1932. [http://www.bartleby.com/73/147.html]</ref>}}

On August 13, 1938, John P. Frey, president of the Metal Trades Department of the AFL, appeared before the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]]. Frey, in a presentation lasting several days, laid before the Committee a completely documented account of the penetration of the CIO by the Communist Party. He gave the names of 280 organizers in CIO unions under salary who were members of the Communist Party. He charged that John Brophy who was the director of the CIO, was expelled by the United Mine Workers some years before for disloyal activities and while he was not directly a member of the Communist Party, he was assisted in his work by two active members of the Party. He had gone to Russia as a member of a delegation sponsored by the Party and approved by Moscow and when he returned the UMW accused him of being a paid agent of the Soviet government. Brophy at a meeting said that the condition of workers in the Soviet Union "should be a source of inspiration to workers in America."

Frey named union after union in the CIO, giving names of the Communists who were holding positions of leadership and trust. He charged, for instance, that they dominated the United Office and Professional Workers Union, that the president of that organization was a member of the Communist Party and through that organization they had infiltrated the government with numerous Party members in almost all the bureaus in Washington.

== Third Term ==

[[Image:Dcrosmor.jpg|right|thumb|330px]]
It is highly questionable whether FDR would have chosen to run for a third term had the [[Nazis]] not experienced such great success early in World War II, particularly in overrunning [[France]], which had been expected to hold out longer. Historian [[Doris Kearns Goodwin]] has explored the implications of triumphant Nazism for FDR's decision in her book ''No Ordinary Time''. While FDR had inaugurated the first system of peacetime [[conscription]] just after France fell, Congress had agreed to conscript men for one year only, and the frontrunner for the [[Republican]] Presidential nomination in 1940, [[Wendell Willkie]], was an isolationist. It was therefore entirely possible that both conscription and the war would end in 1941 with the Nazis in control of all [[Western Europe]] except for [[Britain]], which would be dangerously isolated. FDR's [[Democratic]] [[heir apparent]], [[Vice President]] [[John Nance Garner]] of [[Texas]], was at best lukewarm on both the war and the [[New Deal]]. To avoid this outcome, FDR probably decided to enter the war at the same time he decided to run again, although he was politically unable to do so until the [[Japanese]] attacked [[Pearl Harbor]] in December 1941.

== Fourth Term ==

Had FDR chosen not to run in 1940, he would quite likely have lived longer (the impact of the presidency on its occupants' health is infamous, and FDR eventually confided at least to his wife [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] that he wished to live beyond his term). The [[22nd Amendment]] to the [[U. S. Constitution]], if any, would have dealt with something besides term limitation of the President. FDR's reputation would, however, have been determined by the same factors that determined it in real life: the outcome of World War II, the ability of his party to cement its majority, and in the short term, the willingness of his successor to follow his policies. One of these, the close alliance with the [[Soviet Union]], was repudiated almost immediately by Truman, and as a result, Roosevelt is remembered by [[conservatives]] as at best a qualified success. A Republican 33rd President, however, would most likely have appointed anti-New Deal Justices to the [[U. S. Supreme Court]] (particularly had he been elected in 1940), with the result that Roosevelt today would be roundly condemned as a [[demagogue]], notwithstanding his decision to respect [[George Washington]]'s two-term precedent. Since the Republicans did not actually retake the [[White House]] until the [[1952 Presidential election]] (and then through a candidate who was perceived as being above politics), the New Deal had time to be embraced by a new generation of politicians and constitutional scholars of both parties, although not universally (see [[Constitution in exile movement]]). This may have been an equally important factor in Roosevelt's decision. [[Strom Thurmond]] was a supporter of the President's decision to seek a fourth term, and referred to Roosevelt as having been the world’s greatest leader. <ref>[http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html What Trent Meant], Kevin Baker.</ref>

== Wartime record ==

The following year, on May 27, 1941, FDR stated in one of his radio addresses:

:The Nazis are as ruthless as the Communists in the denial of God.

At the most difficult point in the War, when American boys were landing on the beaches of Normandy, FDR led the nation in prayer publicly during a radio broadcast. <ref>Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, [http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odddayp.html Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer], June 6, 1944.</ref>

"In his second inaugural address, FDR pledged to do his utmost by 'seeking Divine guidance.' He took that mission further on January 25, 1941, when he wrote a personal prologue to a special edition of the New Testament, which was distributed to millions of U.S. soldiers. 'As Commander-in-Chief,' Roosevelt wrote, 'I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.' He believed that all American soldiers should have the opportunity to read the words of Christ in preparing for battle. Once, when joining those soldiers aboard a warship with Winston Churchill, FDR asked the crew and prime minister to join him in singing the hymn 'Onward Christian Soldiers.' In his final inaugural address, FDR affirmed, "So we pray to Him for the vision to see our way clearly ... to achievement of His will.' "<ref>God and George W. Bush (New York: Regan Books, 2004), p. 176</ref>

== Handicap ==

Although FDR had difficulty walking and spent most of his time in a wheelchair, filmed images of his speeches hid this fact by focusing on his body from the waist up.

== Recovery ==
FDR is also famous for his [[New Deal]], a set of [[economic planning]] reforms that were meant to bring about the end of the [[Great Depression]], but instead may have prolonged it and caused American citizens to be burdened with unnecessary government programs for decades to come.

In 1934, a Congressional Investigation was held to examine statements Dr. William A. Wirt, who headed the U.S. [[Department of Education|Office of Education]] in the early days of the [[New Deal]]. Dr. Wirt attended a meeting of his secretary, [[Alice Barrows]] a year earlier. Barrows had been a member of the [[Communist Party of the United States]] since 1919, the same year she began working for the Office of Education. The "Wirt Incident" was widely reported and provoked much controversy. Barrows and several other government employees revealed to Wirt they were members of the Communist party. Wirt testified,
{{Cquote|I was told they believe that by thwarting our then evident economic recovery, they would be able to prolong the country’s destitution until they had demonstrated to the American people that the Government must operate business and commerce. By propaganda, they would destroy institutions making long term capital loans—and then push Uncle Sam into making these loans. Once Uncle Sam becomes our financier, he must also follow his money with control and management. <ref>Hearings, House Select Committee To Investigate Certain Statements of Dr. William Wirt, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, April 10 and 17, 1934. </ref><ref>''Dr Wirt faces the cameras and tells all'', Literary Digest v. 117 (April 21 1934) p. 7.</ref>}}

A June 1945 [[Venona project]] decryption of Soviet [[KGB]] wartime cables from the Washington D.C. KGB Office to Moscow's Eighth Department, the political intelligence wing, relayed information on matters regarding Attorney General Francis Biddle. KGB agent [[Charles Kramer]], who served on the staff of several U.S. Senate Subcommittees, and Barrows are the sources of the information. <ref>Venona 3706 KGB Washington to Moscow, 29 June 1945.</ref> Mary Van Kleek who headed the Russell Sage Foundation and also served on the Board of the National Council, visited Washington weekly to meet with Barrows and [[Greg Silvermaster|Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]].

During [[World War II]] Barrows was the Executive Secretary of the the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. The organization Barrows served as Director was declared in 1953 to be a [[Glossary_of_espionage_terms#Fronts_and_cutouts|Communist front]] organization by the [[Subversive Activities Control Board]] (SACB). In its Findings of Fact, the SACB said the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship,
{{Cquote|advances positions...markedly pro-Soviet and...anti-United States Government...is a Communist-action organization which has as its primary purpose to advance the objectives of the world Communist movement under the [[hegemony]] of the Soviet Union; it has the policy to support and defend the Soviet Union under any and all circumstances...We conclude that the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., is substantially directed, dominated, and controlled by the Communist Party of the United States...and is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support to...the Soviet Union, a Communist foreign government." <ref>United States. Subversive Activities Control Board. [http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=usfexec;cc=usfexec;q1=Barrows;rgn=full%20text;idno=81242.0001.001;didno=81242.0001.001;view=image;seq=511;page=root;size=s;endseq=3;frm=frameset Reports of the Subversive Activities Control Board.] Washington. United States Government Printing Office. 1966. Vol. 1, p. 501.</ref>}}

==See also==
*[[New Ordeal]]
*[[Harry Hopkins]]

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=176 "The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_greatdepression.html/ Great Depression]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1468 FDR: The Man, the Leader, the Legacy], Ralph Raico, Future of Freedom Foundation, April 1, 2001. Retreived from The Independent Institute.org 06/17/07.

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Roosevelt, Franklin}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Assault on Reason

2007-07-24T22:57:43Z

9820:

[[Image:Thumb assaultonreason 1.jpg|right|thumb]]
''The Assault on Reason'' is a political book <ref>Gore still says he has no plans to run for president, but his latest book, "The Assault On Reason," is so nakedly political and sharply critical it's hard to discern what his plans may be. [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3192596 ABC News] </ref>
by [[Al Gore]] which he denies is political. <ref>"I'm not a candidate and this is not a political book, this is not a candidate book," Gore told Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America. [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3192596 ABC News] </ref>
In the book, Gore accuses [[President Bush]] of having an unprincipled hunger for power.

In the book, Al Gore discusses how he thinks that the American democracy has been undermined by the current administration's intrusions of power. While claiming that the book is not political, Gore attacks the current President and his administration relentlessly.

Some have criticized Al Gore's hypocrisy. Id est, in the book Al Gore denounces the media saying that they put little difference, if any difference at all, between news and celebrity, yet he is an ex Vice President of the United States and an Academy Award winner.

In a June 12, 2007 review for Reason Magazine, Michael C. Moynihan wrote:
<blockquote>
The Assault on Reason reestablishes Gore as America’s premier besserwisser and moral scold: the politician who both warns that we are scaring people to death and argues that Manhattan will soon be submerged beneath the Atlantic.<ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/120701.html Free Speech for People Who Think Like Me], Michael Moynihan, ''Reason'', June 12, 2007</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC's Jake Tapper wrote:
<blockquote>
"The Assault On Reason" is an assault on President George W. Bush -- 308 pages of professorially rendered, liberal red meat.
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64 Video of Al Gore blasting George H. W. Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism]

[[category:book]]

Assault on Reason

2007-07-24T22:57:28Z

9820:

[[Image:Thumb assaultonreason 1.jpg|right|thumb]]
''The Assault on Reason'' is a political book <ref>Gore still says he has no plans to run for president, but his latest book, "The Assault On Reason," is so nakedly political and sharply critical it's hard to discern what his plans may be. [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3192596 ABC News] </ref>
by [[Al Gore]] which he denies is political. <ref>"I'm not a candidate and this is not a political book, this is not a candidate book," Gore told Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America. [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3192596 ABC News] </ref>
In the book, Gore accuses [[President Bush]] of having an unprincipled hunger for power.

In the book, Al Gore discusses how he thinks that the American democracy has been undermined by the current administration's intrusions of power. While claiming that the book is not political, Gore attacks the current President and his administration relentlessly.

Some have criticized Al Gore's hypocrisy. Id est, in the book Al Gore denounces the media saying that they put little difference, if any difference at all, between news and celebrity, yet he is an ex Vice President of the United States and an Academy Award winner.

In a June 12, 2007 review for Reason Magazine, Michael C. Moynihan wrote:
<blockquote>
The Assault on Reason reestablishes Gore as America’s premier besserwisser and moral scold: the politician who both warns that we are scaring people to death and argues that Manhattan will soon be submerged beneath the Atlantic.<ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/120701.html Free Speech for People Who Think Like Me], Michael Moynihan, ''Reason'', June 12, 2007</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC's Jake Tapper wrote:
<blockquote>
"The Assault On Reason" is an assault on President George W. Bush -- 308 pages of professorially rendered, liberal red meat . . .
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64 Video of Al Gore blasting George H. W. Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism]

[[category:book]]

Al Gore

2007-07-24T22:53:06Z

9820:

{{President
|image=Al_Gore_2.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Tipper Gore
|spouse2=
|religion=Baptist
}}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th [[Vice President]] of the [[United States]](1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.

In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) Vanderbilt University.
He also served in the [[United States Army]], and worked as a war correspondant during the [[Vietnam War]]. <ref>William V. Kennedy, ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. [http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html]</ref>

He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues.

He is an author noted for his books ''Earth in the Balance'' and ''[[Assault on Reason]]''.

==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>.

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|left|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, [[2004]]]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in Boston,

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retreived from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.</ref>

Gore contemplates a dark horse bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election|2008 Democratic Presidential]] nomination, he appears to have been downgraded from an [[Alpha male]] to a [[Beta male]] by ''Newsweek'' magazine. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881794/site/newsweek/page/0/ Betas Rule], By Jennie Yabroff, ''Newsweek'', June 4, 2007.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He also starred in a keynote presentation about the supposed climate crisis, "[[An Inconvenient Truth]]," which won an [[Oscar]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible [[2008]] presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al Gore October 2006.jpg|thumb|150 px|Al Gore at the XPrize Executive Summit, October 19, [[2006]]]]
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his alleged hypocrisy on environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore, Hypocrite]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.

==References==

<references/>

{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[category:liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

Al Gore

2007-07-24T22:52:53Z

9820:

{{President
|image=Al_Gore_2.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Tipper Gore
|spouse2=
|religion=Baptist
}}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th [[Vice President]] of the [[United States]](1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.

In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) Vanderbilt University.
He also served in the [[United States Army]], and worked as a war correspondant during the [[Vietnam War]]. <ref>William V. Kennedy, ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. [http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html]</ref>

He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues.

He is an author noted for his books''Earth in the Balance'' and ''[[Assault on Reason]]''.

==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>.

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|left|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, [[2004]]]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in Boston,

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retreived from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.</ref>

Gore contemplates a dark horse bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election|2008 Democratic Presidential]] nomination, he appears to have been downgraded from an [[Alpha male]] to a [[Beta male]] by ''Newsweek'' magazine. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881794/site/newsweek/page/0/ Betas Rule], By Jennie Yabroff, ''Newsweek'', June 4, 2007.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He also starred in a keynote presentation about the supposed climate crisis, "[[An Inconvenient Truth]]," which won an [[Oscar]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible [[2008]] presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al Gore October 2006.jpg|thumb|150 px|Al Gore at the XPrize Executive Summit, October 19, [[2006]]]]
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his alleged hypocrisy on environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore, Hypocrite]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.

==References==

<references/>

{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[category:liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-07-22T18:34:02Z

9820: /* This should be merged */

== This should be merged ==

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with [[deceit]], the [[occult]], etc. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the ''characters they play'' a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in ''The Bunker'' he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:
:''"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"''
That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --[[User:9820|9820]] 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Leftist

2007-07-16T22:11:09Z

9820: /* Modern leftists */

{{merge|political spectrum}}
The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social, political, or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics.

The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word [[liberal]].

During the [[Reign of Terror]] of the early [[Enlightenment]], the left attempted a dechristianization movement to replace the "reactionary" worship of God and replace it with the worship of national patriotism, or the ''Patrie''. Many churches were closed and converted into Temples of Reason. <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). </ref>

Michael Bakunin critiqued prominent leftist theoritician [[Karl Marx]] in 1873 with these words,

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a [[Racism|lower level of culture]], will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached [[Nationalism|nationalist]]ically, the [[Slavs]] will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie." <ref>Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin'' On Anarchy, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.</ref>

==Modern leftists==

Modern leftists in the United States have come under increasing criticism as advocates of thought control. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com//article.php?id=20562 Leftist Thought Control], David Limbaugh, ''Human Events'', 05/04/2007. </ref> Author David Limbaugh cites, "Consider the subjects of [[evolution]], [[global warming]], [[gay agenda|special rights for homosexuals]] and [[abstinence]] education. Consider efforts of the left to silence conservative talk radio. Consider the mainstream media's arrogant denial of its transparent [[liberal bias]], pronouncing itself to be above politics and inherently objective and its critics somehow skewed....Consider the leftist refrain that [[red state]] conservatives do not merely possess a different world view, but are not part of the "reality-based community."" However, leftists deny being a part of thought control and manipulating the media. Some even charge the [[right]] with this behavior.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.

[[category:politics]]