Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?

2009-11-16T18:33:02Z

Brown25:

I think the answer is yes with subsidy. The congress could give welfare to businesses. It could afford to do that by making a high denomination coin and depositing it in its bank account. U.S. coins are real money and therefore government doesn’t need to borrow pounds. [[User:Safety|Safety]] 16:21, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:This is not a debate topic, this is a question that should be able to be answered by any introductory economics student, including Conservapedia's own, correctly. Your answer is incorrect. The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with subsidies. If a price control is non-effective, that is the price control is higher than the market price, than there would be no shortages. However, your proposal is very dangerous if taken literally and would bankrupt a nation instantly because of the concept of arbitrage. Essentially, what you are saying is that regardless of the market price, the government will pick up the tab over a certain price. Well, what would I do then if I were a seller? I would jack up my price, in theory, to infinity, to reap the maximum profit possible. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 13:33, 16 November 2009 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

[[Category:Economic debates]]

Service Employees International Union

2009-11-09T23:51:34Z

Brown25:

The '''Service Employees International Union''' (SEIU) is a [[liberal]] organization with 1.9 million members in the [[United States of America|United States]], [[Canada]], and [[Puerto Rico]]. The SEIU says they are "dedicated to improving the lives of [[worker]]s and their [[family|families]] and creating a more just and [[humane]] [[society]]". The SEIU represents four [[service industry]] "divisions":

*'''[[Hospital]] Systems''' – SEIU is the largest [[labor union|union]] of [[health care]] workers in the US. The [[hospital]] systems division represents caregivers and hospital employees, including [[nurse]]s and [[doctor]]s in [[public]], [[private]], and [[non-profit]] [[medical]] institutions.
*'''Long-Term Care''' – SEIU is the largest union of long-term care workers in the US. These are home care and [[nursing home]] workers who provide services in both [[facility]] and private home settings for [[seniors]] and the disabled.
*'''Public Services''' – SEIU is the second largest union of [[public service]] employees composed of [[local]] and [[state]] [[government]] workers, [[public school]] employees, [[bus driver]]s, and [[child care]] [[provider]]s.
*'''Property Services''' – SEIU is the largest property services union, with workers who protect and clean [[commercial]] and [[residential]] [[office]] [[building]]s, and is the largest [[security]] union, with private security [[officer]]s and [[public safety]] personnel.<ref>http://www.seiu.org/about/fast_facts/index.cfm</ref>

The SEIU participates in the [[Americans Against Escalation in Iraq]] [[coalition]].<ref>http://www.noiraqescalation.org/about/</ref>

The current President of SEIU is Andrew Stern since 1996. At the outset, Stern told members that he expected "every leader at every level of this union -- from the international President to the rank-and-file member -- to devote five working days this year to political action." In effect, this became the mandate for the union leaders to work in support of the Democratic Party. Stern sits on the Executive Committee of America Coming Together funded by George Soros. SEIU is a major component of the "Shadow Democratic Party," a network of more than five-dozen unions, nonprofit activist groups, and think tanks with the agendas of the left and which campaigns for Democrat candidates and causes. Because they are a "527 organization", SEIU is not registered as a "political organization" with the Federal Election Commission, and collects "soft money" with no limits on how much it may receive. This money, in turn, is given to Democratic candidates, political action committees, and other "527" groups promoting the same agendas. <ref> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6535 </ref>

The [[Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now_(ACORN)|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]'s largest union backer is the SEIU. ACORN gave more than $4 million to the SEIU and its shadow party affiliates in 2006-07, according to Dept. of Labor filings. One SEIU union, the Illinois Homecare Workers and Home Childcare Providers, sprouted from ACORN's organizing efforts and pays rent to ACORN. <ref> http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/npr-exposes-acorn-seiu-connection.html </ref>

SEIU locals 100 and 880 are run out of the same address, on 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue in New Orleans, as ACORN. Financial disclosures also show that SEIU paid $500,000 in two installments to the “Wal- Mart Organizing Project.” The checks were sent to ACORN’s headquarters in Louisiana. Local 880’s Department of Labor financial filings, in 2005, shows loans and payments to ACORN-run organizations.<ref> http://theunionlabelblog.com/2009/05/16/seiu-acorn-and-the-white-house/ </ref>

On August 7th 2009 three SEIU members were accused of attacking a black conservative protester outside a Saint Louis Townhall meeting. The forum on aging called by Rep. Russ Carnahan, Democrat, drew an overflow crowd in a school gym in south St. Louis County, Missouri. Dozens of people, some with signs about the health care debate, were kept out. Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist, was attacked as he handed out yellow flags with "Don’t tread on me" on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John’s Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him. Mr. Gladney was attacked by people wearing dark blue SEIU t-shirts as the video that surfaced shows. <ref>http://sweetness-light.com/archive/seiu-thugs-beat-up-town-hall-protester</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*http://www.seiu.org/ Official Website

[[Category:Labor]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category:Criminals]]

Rule of law

2009-11-07T16:22:16Z

Brown25:

'''Rule of law''' is a basic [[conservative]] principle of governance by laws, not men. Rule of law requires fidelity and adherence to rational, objective laws, and respect for their plain meaning, rather than arbitrary rule by personal whim. Generally, countries with a higher level of rule of law have a higher level of economic output compared to those countries with a lower level of rule of law.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Black market

2009-11-07T16:20:44Z

Brown25:

The '''black market''' is a market run apart from the regular [[economy]]. The black market includes transactions of illegal goods or services such as drugs, prostitution, selling stolen goods, or otherwise legal goods where the parties are trying to avoid taxation, such as smuggled cigarettes. Generally, an increase in regulations and/or a decrease in the [[rule of law]] leads to an increase in black market activity.

Black market

2009-11-07T16:20:21Z

Brown25:

The '''black market''' is a market run apart from the regular economy. The black market includes transactions of illegal goods or services such as drugs, prostitution, selling stolen goods, or otherwise legal goods where the parties are trying to avoid taxation, such as smuggled cigarettes. Generally, an increase in regulations and/or a decrease in the [[rule of law]] leads to an increase in black market activity.

Obamanomics

2009-11-06T22:21:22Z

Brown25: Implicitly highlights the differences between the Reagan recession and the Obama recession

'''Obamanomics''' is a school of economic thought and policy being pushed by the [[Obama Administration]]. With unemployment at 10.2% as of October 2009<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jobs_lost/2009/11/06/282644.html</ref> and inflation also rising since the beginning of Obama's term, it is proving to be a failed system.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Talk:Obamanomics

2009-11-06T22:20:13Z

Brown25:

Was [[Reaganomics]] a "failed system" in Nov./Dec. 1982?[http://www.bls.gov/data/] [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 16:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:No, and here's why. Job growth right after the peak of unemployment in late 1982 was swift and it was quick. Carter left Paul Volcker, who by the way is my favorite liberal, and Reagan in a predicament as to whether to control unemployment or inflation. By 1984, unemployment was actually lower than what it had been when Reagan took office and inflation had practically disappeared. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 17:20, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Obamanomics

2009-11-06T21:51:12Z

Brown25: Will add a lot more on this today with appropriate citations

'''Obamanomics''' is a school of economic thought and policy being pushed by the [[Obama Administration]]. With unemployment at 10.2% as of October 2009, it is proving to be a failed system.

Black market

2009-11-06T03:28:29Z

Brown25:

The '''black market''' is a market run apart from the regular economy. The black market includes transactions of illegal goods or services such as drugs, prostitution, selling stolen goods, or otherwise legal goods where the parties are trying to avoid taxation, such as smuggled cigarettes. Generally, an increase in regulations and/or a decrease in the rule of law leads to an increase in black market activity.

Creigh Deeds

2009-11-05T17:42:53Z

Brown25:

[[Image:000deeds.jpg‎|right|150px|]]'''Robert Creigh Deeds''' (born January 4, 1958) is a member of the [[Virginia]] Senate and was the Democratic nominee for Governor of Virginia in the 2009 election, in which he was defeated by [[Republican]] [[Bob McDonnell]]; Deeds also ran unsuccessfully against McDonnell for Attorney General in 2005, though in a much closer race.

Spurning pleas from President Obama, former Virginia Governor [[Douglas Wilder]] refused to endorse Deeds, taking issue with the candidate's willingness to raise taxes in a weak economy. Wilder, the first black governor, carries great weight with Virginia's African American population. Blacks will vote for Deeds, but Wilder's refusal may lower their turnout rate, which was quite high in 2008.<ref> See [http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/25/wilder-to-deeds-thats-not-leadership/ "Wilder on Deeds: 'That's Not Leadership'" ''Washington Times'' Sept. 25, 2009]</ref>

==Issues==
===Abortion===
Creigh Deeds is strongly pro-choice on [[abortion]], in the state legislature he voted for [[partial birth abortion]], against a 24 hour waiting period, against the parental consent amendment and offered an emergency contraception access bill. "I am pro-choice...we have to keep abortion legal." <ref>http://www.armyofgod.com/CraigDeedsPolitician.html</ref>

===Taxes===

Creigh Deeds has stated the following on tax reform:

'''Reporter:''' Is that a pledge that you won’t raise taxes?

'''Deeds:''' No it’s not a pledge I don’t take pledges. No.

'''Reporter:''' So you still would be willing to sign a bill that included a tax increase?

'''Deeds:''' Absolutely. I did not mean to make news with that perspective, with that answer, I didn’t mean to change anything. I’m willing to sign a bill that raises money for transportation and in fact I intend to sign that bill.

'''Reporter:''' Let me just clarify. You said, “I have no plan to raise taxes.”

'''Deeds:''' Right

'''Reporter:''' Is that correct?

'''Deeds:''' That’s right.

'''Reporter:''' General fund taxes?

'''Deeds:''' General fund taxes. I have no plan to raise taxes, what I want to do is get a transportation bill passed next year and we’re going to have to raise money. Um, to fund transportation that’s the bottom line. Everything is on the table with me except one thing. Taking money out of the general fund.

'''Reporter:''' But when you said “I’m not going to raise taxes”, what did you mean? You said in the debate “I’m not going to raise taxes” what did that mean?

'''Deeds:''' What that meant in the general sense of the term, I’m not going to raise general fund taxes. I know we’re going to have to raise money for transportation.

'''Reporter:''' So you would raise other types of taxes?

'''Deeds:''' I think I, I meant what I said. I have no plan to raise general fund taxes.

'''Reporter:''' So what kind of taxes would you raise?

'''Deeds:''' We’re going, everything is on the table when we consider raising money for transportation.

'''Female Reporter:''' So yes that’s a general fund tax?

'''Deeds:''' I guess. That’s what goes to the transportation trust fund.

'''Female Reporter:''' So it would not be covered under raising general fund taxes.

'''Deeds:''' I think I made myself clear young lady.

'''Female Reporter:''' I’m sorry I’m not trying to be mean I’m just trying to understand.

'''Reporter:''' I think what people are trying to understand is that…

'''Deeds:''' For transportation everything is on the table except taking money out of the general fund and taking money out of education. We have to raise money for transportation. We have the need to exceed a billion dollars a year. We have to come up with a billion dollars a year in new money. Everything’s on the table except taking money out of the general fund and taking money out of education. Now here’s the problem. The other guy will tell you if you take money out of the general fund for any reason I guess literally that’s correct. But honestly last week the governor announced a 1.3 billion dollar reduction in general sums, primarily from higher education from other services. Now the reality is we got major needs in the general fund areas and we can’t rob Peter to pay Paul.We have real transportation and we need to put money into it.

'''Reporter:''' And for people who don’t understand, with the general fund, will Virginians see a tax increase if you are elected?

'''Deeds:''' Virginians will not see a tax increase that goes in the general fund.

'''Reporter:''' But they might see one that goes to transportation?

'''Deeds:''' They might see that. We’re going to raise money for transportation until we can bring people together and develop incentives and new ideas and what forum that’s going to take. But we’re going to afterwards fund transportation. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE6d36a2gso&feature=player_embedded</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Virginia]]

Tim Kaine

2009-11-04T03:42:42Z

Brown25:

{{Officeholder
|name=Tim Kaine
|image=TimKaine.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Anne Holton
|religion=Roman Catholicism
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Virginia
|terms=January 14, 2006-present
|preceded=[[Mark Warner]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Bob McDonnell]]
}}
}}
'''Timothy Michael "Tim" Kaine''' (born February 26, 1958) is the 70th Governor of [[Virginia]], being elected in 2005 with 52% of the vote, and currently chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]]. Previously he served as [[Lieutenant Governor]] and Mayor of [[Richmond]]. Kaine won the governorship by running as a [[conservative Democrat]]. He is Pro-Life (although he opposes overturning [[Roe v. Wade]]) and "strongly supports the [[Second Amendment]]."<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Tim_Kaine_Gun_Control.htm</ref>. As Mayor of Richmond, he was credited with helping to create and implement Project Exile gun law, which shifts the prosecution of illegal gun possession offenses to federal court, rather than state court. Less then three weeks after his gubernatorial inauguration in Williamsburg on January 14, 2006, Kaine was selected to give the Democratic response to President [[George W. Bush]]'s state of the Union address.

In the [[2008 Presidential Election]], Kaine was frequently rumored to be on Democratic nominee [[Barack Obama]]'s Vice Presidential short list. However, Obama selected Senator [[Joseph Biden]] of [[Delaware]] instead. Kaine said that Joe Biden would help Obama win Virginia; "Joe comes from the state Delaware that borders Virginia, the eastern shore part of Virginia and Delaware are not only bordering but very similar."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV-mB3Wjuqs</ref>This is factually inaccurate, in that Delaware does not border Virginia.

An October 2009 Public Policy Poll showed Governor Kaine with a 46% approval rating, with 39% disapprove. <ref>http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_VA_10221.pdf</ref> He will leave office in January 2010 with a $1.5 billion budget shortfall. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902811.html</ref>

==Record as Governor==
*In June 2006, Kaine signed an executive order banning smoking in all government buildings and state-owned cars.

*Signed a bill into law passed by the [[Republican]]-controlled state legislature that mandated HPV vaccines for sixth-grade girls.

*After the Virginia Tech massacre, Kaine appointed a commission to examine what the university knew about the student who killed 32 people. The commission was led by former Pennsylvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security [[Tom Ridge]].

*On April 30, 2007, Governor Kaine signed a bill that instructed state agencies to block gun sales to people who are involuntarily committed to inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043000556.html?hpid=moreheadlines</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.governor.virginia.gov/ Official Governor of Virginia Site]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kaine, Tim}}
[[Category:Virginia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]

Jon Corzine

2009-11-04T03:42:17Z

Brown25:

{{Officeholder
|name=Jon Corzine
|image=Jon Corzine.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Joanne Dougherty Corzine (divorced)
|religion=United Church of Christ
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=New Jersey
|terms=January 17, 2006 – Present
|preceded=Richard Codey
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Chris Christie]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=New Jersey
|terms=January 3, 2001 – January 17, 2006
|preceded=Frank Lautenberg
|former=n
|succeeded=Robert Menendez
}}
}}

'''Jon Corzine''' (born January 1, 1947)<Ref>http://www.state.nj.us/governor/about/</Ref> is the [[Democratic]] governor of the state of [[New Jersey]]. He faces a tough reelection battle in November 2009 in the face of economic troubles and a poor performance as governor. Thanks to massive spending of his own money he is now tied with Republican [[Christopher Christie]] in polls that show voters are still dubious about giving Corzine another term as the New Jersey economy continues to weaken, high property taxes are a heavy burden, and recurrent corruption scandals have tainted Democrats in the state.

The final polls show a very close race, with Christie at 42%, Corzone at 41%, and independent Daggett at 10%.

* [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2009/governor/nj/new_jersey_governor_corzine_vs_christie-1051.html see latest polls]
==Career==
Corzine grew up on the family farm in central Illinois and graduated from the University of Illinois (1969); he earned an MBA at the [[University of Chicago]] in 1973. Corzine worked in banking and in 1994 become Co-Chairman and CEO of the big Wall Street investment firm of [[Goldman Sachs]], alongside [[Henry Paulson]]. In 1996-99, he earned $145 million (and paid $43 million in taxes, while giving $25 million to charity.) He retired in 1999 selling his shares for $300 million, and entered politics.

==United States Senate==
Corzine spent his way into office; his private foundation gave out $48 million to politically visible local groups in New Jersey. He spent $35 million in the 2000 primary. and in the fall race spent another $30 million with gambits like busing into New Jersey people from homeless shelters in the next state. He won 50%-47% thanks to big margins in the inner cities. He still had money left over, and became the fourth richest member of the U.S. Senate. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/</ref> He was a member of the Committees on Banking, Intelligence, the Budget, and Energy and Natural Resources. Corzine sponsored 127 bills while in office, however 120 never made it out of committee and only one was successfully enacted. <ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300028</ref> In 2002, Corzine voted against authorizing [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] to go to war against [[Iraq]]. He chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2003-2005, during which Democrats lost 4 Senate seats.

==2005 Gubernatorial Campaign==
In 2005 Senator Corzine was a candidate for the governorship of New Jersey. It was the most expensive gubernatorial election in New Jersey history. The combined expenditures for Corzine's senatorial and gubernatorial runs exceeded $100 million. Corzine campaigned by linking his Republican opponent [[Doug Forrester]] with the Bush administration. Corzine's campaign was successful, winning 54% of the popular vote and 13 of New Jersey's 21 counties.

==Governorship of New Jersey==
Corzine was sworn in as the 54th Governor of New Jersey on January 17, 2006. Upon the closing of his inaugural address Corzine said "I ask you – the citizens of New Jersey, hold me accountable." <ref>http://enlightennj.blogspot.com/2006/01/corzines-inaugural-address-as-governor.html</ref>

===Corruption and Scandals===

[[Image:Corzine_sweater1-1-300x206.jpg‎|right|250px]]Jon Corzine had a romantic relationship with Carla Katz, president of the Communications Workers of America, a major labor union. After living together for two years from 2002 through their breakup in 2004, Corzine paid a $6 million settlement. After Corzine was sworn in as Governor in 2006, Carla Katz maintained contact with him, despite her colleagues warning that the unusual multi-million-dollar settlement could result in a conflict of interest with union negotiations. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/nyregion/23carla.html?_r=1</ref> In 2007 an ethics panel ruled that labor negotiations did not violate the governor's code of conduct. In May 2008, the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that at least 745 pages of e-mails between Corzine and Katz must be made public, however Corzine's lawyers appealed the decision. In March 2009 Katz was expelled from Communications Workers of America after she spent $138,000 on personal and political expenses in violation of union regulations. <ref>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/carla_katz_will_have_radio_sho.html</ref>

In July 2009 a major corruption probe led to the arrests of 44 New Jersey officials, in which 43 were Democrats. A member of Jon Corzine's cabinet, Commissioner of Community Affairs Joseph Doria was raided by the FBI.

A ''New York Times'' poll in 2009 found that 51% of state residents disapproved of how Corzine was handling corruption in the state. Even worse, 77% complained that corruption would either increase or stay the same if Corzine was re-elected. Hurting the governor is that he once ran Goldman Sachs, the recently bailed-out bank at the center of the national financial crisis. "With Corzine there is a sense of resignation, and a feeling that there are a lot of unfulfilled promises," explains Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "He has not changed the way business is done in Trenton."<ref> [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1931331,00.html?xid=thepage_newsletter ''Time'' Oct. 21, 2009]</ref>

===Government Shutdown===

On July 1, 2006, Governor Corzine was forced to shut down the state government after clashing with fellow Democrats in the the state Assembly to pass a sales tax increase, resulting in the Assembly being unable to pass a balanced budget. As a result road construction projects were halted, the New Jersey Lottery, Motor Vehicle Commission and the New Jersey Department of Education was shut down. Gambling at Atlantic City casinos were suspended and 45,000 state employees were in indefinitely. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100864.html</ref>

They reached a compromise, with the New Jersey legislator passing Corzine's sales tax increase in exchange for half of the revenue created from it would be used to give New Jerseyans direct property tax relief. The state government was fully restored on July 10, 2006.

===Automobile Accident===
On the way to an unimportant publicity meeting on April 13, 2007, Corzine ordered his police driver to go at high speeds, and refused to wear a seat belt. In the resulting crash the air bag did not work and Corzine was inches from death. He suffered multiple injuries especially to his thigh bone. He paid a fine and after intensive hospital care and rehabilitation returned to work.

===Economic Record===

[[Image:Corzine_state_of_the_state.JPG|thumb|right|150px|Gov. Corzine delivering his 2009 State of the State address]] Under Governor Corzine New Jersey was ranked as the worst business climate of any state by the Tax Foundation <ref>http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp58-es.pdf</ref>, and overall has the highest tax burden in the nation. Since Corzine took office, property taxes have risen 17%, twice the rate of inflation. <ref>Department
of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services Website, www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/, Accessed
6/4/09</ref> The state budget deficit has increased from $3.6 billion to $10 billion. Foreclosed homes have increased 31%, one of the highest in the nation <ref>http://www.njbiz.com/article.asp?aID=79154</ref>, and the [[unemployment rate]] has risen from 4.8% to 9.8%, higher than any of it's neighboring states. <ref>http://www.christiefornj.com/images/corzinesrecord.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/nj_unemployment_rate_hits_high.html</ref> Corzine defended his economic record, saying "If you want to go to a real low unemployment rate, go to North Dakota." <ref>http://www.njassemblyrepublicans.com/press_release.php?id=986</ref>

In response to the rising deficit Corzine has proposed eliminating New Jersey's property tax rebates, which provides tax relief in the state of New Jersey, which already has the highest property taxes in the nation. <ref>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/corzine_may_propose_eliminatin.html</ref> Corzine has already cut $382.5 million from the rebate program in June 2008.

== 2009 Reelection Campaign==
Corzine has announced his candidacy for reelection in 2009, however trailed his Republican opponent [[Christopher Christie]] in early public opinion polls. <ref>http://race42008.com/2009/03/13/poll-watch-new-jersey-more-good-news-edition/</ref> <ref>http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/31284/gop-poll-has-christie-15-points</ref> <ref>http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/new_jersey/20090714_ap_pollchristiewidensleadinnjgovsrace.html</ref> Corzine's record on property taxes and the economy are the number one issues during the campaign. <ref>http://www.politickernj.com/alan-steinberg/30521/governors-race-eight-key-quinnipiac-findings</ref>

A poll from Research 2000/Daily Kos conducted in early August showed Christie leading by eight percentage points overall; the margin narrowed in late August after campaign help from [[President Obama]]. By late October Christie and Corzine were tied 39%-39%. Chris Daggett, a liberal Republican and former regional administrator for the [[Environmental Protection Agency]], is running as an independent and is polling at 15%. For the latest polls see [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2009/governor/nj/new_jersey_governor_corzine_vs_christie-1051.html Real Clear Politics]
==References==
<References/>

[[Category:New Jersey Governors]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Corzine, Jon}}
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]

Internet parodist

2009-11-04T01:11:40Z

Brown25: /* Internet parodists as a liberal phenomenon */

An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].

There several purposes in being an internet parodist:
* Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree, particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing. They can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like "I went bowling last night"), and then laughing at them when they believe you. Since this type of parodist presents a plausible case, they are only taking pleasure at others' good faith.
* Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]], which states that it is impossible to parody certain extreme points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied, so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.
* Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among the group they are parodying. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users, and deleting good-faith comments from talk-pages while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing "conservatives" to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, this form of parody is a [[logical fallacy]].

== Internet parodists as a liberal phenomenon ==
One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled<ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]</ref>, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well<ref>"C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780</ref><ref>If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?" [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]</ref>), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, usually because they have jobs or are otherwise productive members of society.

Possible explanations for the correlation between political persuasion and parody include, from a conservative perspective:
* Something in the mind of liberals that makes them more prone to parody
* Something in the mind of parodists that makes them more prone to be liberal
* The liberal world outlook may be far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, conservative attempts at parody are simply redundant
* The narrowness of the liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with

From a liberal perspective:
* There is less to parody about the liberal point of view
* Conservatives lack a sense of humor

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Internet]]

Internet parodist

2009-11-04T01:11:25Z

Brown25: /* Internet parodists as a liberal phenomenon */

An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].

There several purposes in being an internet parodist:
* Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree, particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing. They can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like "I went bowling last night"), and then laughing at them when they believe you. Since this type of parodist presents a plausible case, they are only taking pleasure at others' good faith.
* Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]], which states that it is impossible to parody certain extreme points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied, so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.
* Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among the group they are parodying. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users, and deleting good-faith comments from talk-pages while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing "conservatives" to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, this form of parody is a [[logical fallacy]].

== Internet parodists as a liberal phenomenon ==
One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled<ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]</ref>, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well<ref>"C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780</ref><ref>If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?" [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]</ref>), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, usually because they jobs or are otherwise productive members of society.

Possible explanations for the correlation between political persuasion and parody include, from a conservative perspective:
* Something in the mind of liberals that makes them more prone to parody
* Something in the mind of parodists that makes them more prone to be liberal
* The liberal world outlook may be far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, conservative attempts at parody are simply redundant
* The narrowness of the liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with

From a liberal perspective:
* There is less to parody about the liberal point of view
* Conservatives lack a sense of humor

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Internet]]

Robert McDonnell

2009-11-04T00:20:27Z

Brown25:

[[Image:000bobmcdonnell.jpg|right|150px|]]'''Robert F. "Bob" McDonnell''' (born June 15, 1954) is the [[Governor|Governor-elect]] of [[Virginia]], a former [[Lieutenant Colonel]] in the United States Army, and a former U.S. prosecutor. Previously he served as state [[Attorney General]] from 2006-2009, before resigning to focus full time on his gubernatorial campaign. McDonnell's Democratic opponent was state Senator [[Creigh Deeds]], whom he defeated in 2005 for attorney general. McDonnell had consistently led Deeds in the polls by wide margins. <ref>http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9db323a1-0c9c-4a39-887c-c504bc80fb06</ref> <ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2009/virginia/toplines/toplines_virginia_governor_election_september_29_2009/</ref> <ref>http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=10fe2317-36a6-4429-86ce-1d154fb33c58%26c=18/</ref><ref>http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_101909_gov._selection_poll.231bdeef9.html</ref>
==Career==
Born in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]] and raised in northern Virginia, he attended the [[University of Notre Dame]] on an [[ROTC]] scholarship. During his twenty-one years in the [[army]], McDonnell spent four years running a medical clinic in [[Germany]]. After marrying and raising a family, he graduated from Regent University in Virginia Beach in 1989 with a law degree and became a prosecutor in the Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. McDonnell was first elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1992, defeating a twenty-year incumbent. He would go on to be reelected seven times, and would rise to the position of Assistant [[Majority Leader]] and Chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee. During his tenure he passed parental notification law for [[abortion]]s, drunk driving laws and legislation to abolish the death tax.

As Attorney General McDonnell saw 83 of his 94 legislative proposals become law, including passing "[[Jessica’s Law]]" which established a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for certain sexual predators who commit violent crimes against children.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/ Campaign Website]

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:McDonnell, Bob}}
[[Category:Virginia]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Virginia Governors]]

Tim Kaine

2009-11-04T00:19:39Z

Brown25:

{{Officeholder
|name=Tim Kaine
|image=TimKaine.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Anne Holton
|religion=Roman Catholicism
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Virginia
|terms=January 14, 2006-present
|preceded=[[Mark Warner]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Bob McDonnell]] (presumed)
}}
}}
'''Timothy Michael "Tim" Kaine''' (born February 26, 1958) is the 70th Governor of [[Virginia]], being elected in 2005 with 52% of the vote, and currently chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]]. Previously he served as [[Lieutenant Governor]] and Mayor of [[Richmond]]. Kaine won the governorship by running as a [[conservative Democrat]]. He is Pro-Life (although he opposes overturning [[Roe v. Wade]]) and "strongly supports the [[Second Amendment]]."<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Tim_Kaine_Gun_Control.htm</ref>. As Mayor of Richmond, he was credited with helping to create and implement Project Exile gun law, which shifts the prosecution of illegal gun possession offenses to federal court, rather than state court. Less then three weeks after his gubernatorial inauguration in Williamsburg on January 14, 2006, Kaine was selected to give the Democratic response to President [[George W. Bush]]'s state of the Union address.

In the [[2008 Presidential Election]], Kaine was frequently rumored to be on Democratic nominee [[Barack Obama]]'s Vice Presidential short list. However, Obama selected Senator [[Joseph Biden]] of [[Delaware]] instead. Kaine said that Joe Biden would help Obama win Virginia; "Joe comes from the state Delaware that borders Virginia, the eastern shore part of Virginia and Delaware are not only bordering but very similar."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV-mB3Wjuqs</ref>This is factually inaccurate, in that Delaware does not border Virginia.

An October 2009 Public Policy Poll showed Governor Kaine with a 46% approval rating, with 39% disapprove. <ref>http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_VA_10221.pdf</ref> He will leave office in January 2010 with a $1.5 billion budget shortfall. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902811.html</ref>

==Record as Governor==
*In June 2006, Kaine signed an executive order banning smoking in all government buildings and state-owned cars.

*Signed a bill into law passed by the [[Republican]]-controlled state legislature that mandated HPV vaccines for sixth-grade girls.

*After the Virginia Tech massacre, Kaine appointed a commission to examine what the university knew about the student who killed 32 people. The commission was led by former Pennsylvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security [[Tom Ridge]].

*On April 30, 2007, Governor Kaine signed a bill that instructed state agencies to block gun sales to people who are involuntarily committed to inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043000556.html?hpid=moreheadlines</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.governor.virginia.gov/ Official Governor of Virginia Site]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kaine, Tim}}
[[Category:Virginia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]

Tim Kaine

2009-11-04T00:19:25Z

Brown25:

{{Officeholder
|name=Tim Kaine
|image=TimKaine.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Anne Holton
|religion=Roman Catholicism
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Virginia
|terms=January 14, 2006-present
|preceded=[[Mark Warner]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Bob McDonnell]](presumed)
}}
}}
'''Timothy Michael "Tim" Kaine''' (born February 26, 1958) is the 70th Governor of [[Virginia]], being elected in 2005 with 52% of the vote, and currently chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]]. Previously he served as [[Lieutenant Governor]] and Mayor of [[Richmond]]. Kaine won the governorship by running as a [[conservative Democrat]]. He is Pro-Life (although he opposes overturning [[Roe v. Wade]]) and "strongly supports the [[Second Amendment]]."<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Tim_Kaine_Gun_Control.htm</ref>. As Mayor of Richmond, he was credited with helping to create and implement Project Exile gun law, which shifts the prosecution of illegal gun possession offenses to federal court, rather than state court. Less then three weeks after his gubernatorial inauguration in Williamsburg on January 14, 2006, Kaine was selected to give the Democratic response to President [[George W. Bush]]'s state of the Union address.

In the [[2008 Presidential Election]], Kaine was frequently rumored to be on Democratic nominee [[Barack Obama]]'s Vice Presidential short list. However, Obama selected Senator [[Joseph Biden]] of [[Delaware]] instead. Kaine said that Joe Biden would help Obama win Virginia; "Joe comes from the state Delaware that borders Virginia, the eastern shore part of Virginia and Delaware are not only bordering but very similar."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV-mB3Wjuqs</ref>This is factually inaccurate, in that Delaware does not border Virginia.

An October 2009 Public Policy Poll showed Governor Kaine with a 46% approval rating, with 39% disapprove. <ref>http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_VA_10221.pdf</ref> He will leave office in January 2010 with a $1.5 billion budget shortfall. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902811.html</ref>

==Record as Governor==
*In June 2006, Kaine signed an executive order banning smoking in all government buildings and state-owned cars.

*Signed a bill into law passed by the [[Republican]]-controlled state legislature that mandated HPV vaccines for sixth-grade girls.

*After the Virginia Tech massacre, Kaine appointed a commission to examine what the university knew about the student who killed 32 people. The commission was led by former Pennsylvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security [[Tom Ridge]].

*On April 30, 2007, Governor Kaine signed a bill that instructed state agencies to block gun sales to people who are involuntarily committed to inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043000556.html?hpid=moreheadlines</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.governor.virginia.gov/ Official Governor of Virginia Site]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kaine, Tim}}
[[Category:Virginia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]

Robert McDonnell

2009-11-04T00:18:25Z

Brown25:

Robert McDonnell

2009-11-04T00:17:52Z

Brown25:

[[Image:000bobmcdonnell.jpg|right|150px|]]'''Robert F. "Bob" McDonnell''' (born June 15, 1954) is the [[Governor-elect]] of [[Virginia]], a former [[Lieutenant Colonel]] in the United States Army, and a former U.S. prosecutor. Previously he served as state [[Attorney General]] from 2006-2009, before resigning to focus full time on his gubernatorial campaign. McDonnell's Democratic opponent was state Senator [[Creigh Deeds]], whom he defeated in 2005 for attorney general. McDonnell had consistently led Deeds in the polls by wide margins. <ref>http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9db323a1-0c9c-4a39-887c-c504bc80fb06</ref> <ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2009/virginia/toplines/toplines_virginia_governor_election_september_29_2009/</ref> <ref>http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=10fe2317-36a6-4429-86ce-1d154fb33c58%26c=18/</ref><ref>http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_101909_gov._selection_poll.231bdeef9.html</ref>
==Career==
Born in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]] and raised in northern Virginia, he attended the [[University of Notre Dame]] on an [[ROTC]] scholarship. During his twenty-one years in the [[army]], McDonnell spent four years running a medical clinic in [[Germany]]. After marrying and raising a family, he graduated from Regent University in Virginia Beach in 1989 with a law degree and became a prosecutor in the Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. McDonnell was first elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1992, defeating a twenty-year incumbent. He would go on to be reelected seven times, and would rise to the position of Assistant [[Majority Leader]] and Chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee. During his tenure he passed parental notification law for [[abortion]]s, drunk driving laws and legislation to abolish the death tax.

As Attorney General McDonnell saw 83 of his 94 legislative proposals become law, including passing "[[Jessica’s Law]]" which established a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for certain sexual predators who commit violent crimes against children.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/ Campaign Website]

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:McDonnell, Bob}}
[[Category:Virginia]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

User:Brown25

2009-11-03T21:09:03Z

Brown25:

I have a BS in Economics, an MS in Finance, and I am working on another MS in Statistics. I have worked for ExxonMobil and JPMorgan and while I am conservative, I have been known to split my ticket when I agreed more with the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate or when I did not feel the Republican candidate was competent enough for the office. I find Wikipedia to be wholly uncredible, not just because of a political bias, but because in my opinion the only people that seem to edit Wikipedia are unemployed liberal community college dropouts like Ryan Jordan. Essentially, Wikipedia is pseudoacademic for people who want to feel that they are intellectual, but in reality are not. My economic role model is Phil Gramm. I feel Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which was signed by President Bill Clinton (Leach later endorsed President Barack Obama), prevented the economic fallout from being much worse. Bear in mind the only major banks that have recently failed were the investment banks that were not commercial banks as well or commercial banks that were not investment banks as well.

I am from Texas, and I consider myself a Rick Perry Republican. Interestingly, I have not really supported the governor strongly in the past, but I vote based upon results and there is no denying that Rick Perry has generated, on a relative basis compared to the rest of the nation, both strong economic and fiscal results. I do not agree with all of Rick Perry's speeches, but I doubt that I can find any politician with whom I would agree with 100%. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted for the bank bailout and her moderate values are not what this state needs. Her endorsers include Dick Cheney, who said it would be "Herbert Hoover" time if the Senate did not approve the auto bailout.

There are three points that I do have concerns with Rick Perry on, however: the Trans Texas corridor, his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani in the primaries, and his mandate for the Gardisil vaccine.

Affirmative Action

2009-11-03T05:36:25Z

Brown25: Unsourced liberal blather removed

'''Affirmative action''' means giving someone a preference or advantage based on the color of his skin, or gender, to reverse the effects of [[discrimination]] and often for political motivation. [[Quotas]] are an extreme form of '''affirmative action'''.

The original concept of affirmative action, when introduced by the [[President Johnson|Johnson]] administration, was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done actively, by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.

This would be, in its way, admirable. However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some so-called minorities that are actually majorities).

* The worst feature of such programs is that they are presented to the public as if they were "equal opportunity" programs when they are patently aimed at "equal outcomes" regardless of the merits and abilities of job applicants. [http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/frauds1.htm]

In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory - discrimination remains discrimination.

''[[Regents v. Bakke]]'' effectively outlawed [[quotas]] but allowed affirmative action as long as there are considerations other than race. This is sometimes called reverse discrimination.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
{{cquote|Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden by Dinesh D'Souza]</ref>}}

[[John H. McWhorter]] wrote:
{{cquote|For most black Americans, the rapid increase of the black middle class, of [[interracial relationship]]s and [[interracial marriage|marriages]], and of blacks in prestigious positions has no bearing on the real state of [[black America]]. Further, they believe, whites’ inability to grasp the unmistakable reality of [[oppression]] is itself proof of [[racism]], while blacks who question that reality are self-deluded. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html]}}

On August 28, 2007 the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report that determined that affirmative action can be harmful to minority law school students because students admitted through affirmative action programs are more likely to be unprepared and are thus being set up for failure.<ref>[http://www.usccr.gov/press/2007/AALS82807.pdf U.S. Civil Rights Commission Warns That Affirmative Action Might Harm Minority Law Students]</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Affirmative Action President]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

Category talk:Reagan Era

2009-10-23T04:40:55Z

Brown25: Created page with 'We need to have a discussion on how the Reagan can can encompass 1989-2008. Even if you concede 1989-1992 as the Reagan era, how in the world is 1993-2008 part of the Reagan era...'

We need to have a discussion on how the Reagan can can encompass 1989-2008. Even if you concede 1989-1992 as the Reagan era, how in the world is 1993-2008 part of the Reagan era? [[User:Brown25|Brown25]]

Financial Crisis of 2008

2009-10-23T02:02:22Z

Brown25: Undo revision 712992 by Brown25 (Talk) May not be liberal vandalism but is definitely an incorrect classification

The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''', continuing into 2009, is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that is the worst the world has seen since 1933 with the [[Great Depression]]. Drastic measures to confront seemingly insurmountable financial calamity resulted in the creation of '''TARP''' (Troubled Assets Relief Program), $700 billion safety net by the U.S. Government. The National Bureau of Economic Research<ref>NBER is a private organization that follows its own standards as set by eminent economists such as [[Milton Friedman]]; its dating of business cycles is widely accepted by conservatives.</ref> has identified the peak of the last expansion in December 2007; the U.S. economy has been in decline ever since.<ref>See "Text of the NBER's statement on the recession and FAQ's" [http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-01-recession-nber-statement_N.htm ''USA Today'' Dec 1, 2008]. "The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said," at [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> [[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|330px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]] The crisis has caused the [[Recession of 2008]], which continues to worsen in 2009 into a worldwide economic decline that is the most severe since the 1930s.

The [[International Monetary Fund]] (IMF) calculates that the global financial crisis will produce $3.4 trillion in losses for financial institutions around the world between 2007 and 2010.<ref> Peter Dattels and Laura Kodres, "Global Financial System Shows Signs of Recovery, IMF Says," [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/RES093009A.htm ''IMF Survey Magazine'' Sept. 30, 2009]</ref>

==Overview==
Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and vitually every other sector of the economy. Consumer spending has plunged, and banks have been very reluctant to loan money. Major banks and corporations have gone bankrupt.

The recession is worldwide. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, but thus far the results have been inconclusive and the declines continue. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year in the U.S.). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else. Rush Limbaugh, for example, blames Obama.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide, especially in September 2008. The negative effects by October 2008 began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere. For the effects on the broader economy (outside of finance and autos) see [[Recession of 2008]].
The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.
[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed [[bridge to nowhere]], Dec. 1, 2008]]
Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Both the Bush and Clinton administrations made it a national priority to encourage more people to buy houses, assuming this social engineering would be good for everyone. In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and its expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; but President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans to poor neighborhoods comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

"Option adjustable rate mortgages" (nick-named "Pick-A-Pay") allowed borrowers to vary their monthly payments; they could be so so small they did not cover their interest charges. That meant the total principal grows over time, compared to normal mortgages where the debt owed shrinks over 30 years to zero and the borrower owns the house free and clear. By 2008 banks sold these dangerous "option adjustable rate" mortgages to two million customers. They made sense if and only if the price of houses kept going up and the borrower could sell it in a year ot two at a huge profit. But if house prices declined, the borrower could stop paying and the bank was left with the loss.

Timeline video showing Democrats opposing regulating housing market financing. President Bush, Senator McCain and Alan Greenspan all predicting financial collapse and offering regulation. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 See video]

The [[NYTimes]] says Senator [[Charles Schumer]] D-NY, is the most responsible for Wall Street's collapse. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14schumer.html A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits] NYTimes, December 13, 2008</ref> Schumer as a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, led efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, shield financial institutions from government oversight and tougher regulations, and saved key industry players billions of dollars in taxes and fees.

===Selling mortgage packages to big investors===
Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declined in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. The CDOs were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

===Misuse of Credit Default Swaps===
Another key contributing factor to the credit market meltdown was the misuse of Credit Default Swaps, or CDSs, which are contracts between entities designed to mitigate against risk of a credit default. A CDS is essentially an insurance policy designed to protect the insured party against excessive losses in a separate financial transaction. However, by structuring the contract as a derivative swap instead of a traditional insurance policy, companies other than regulated insurers could offer them. This created two critical risk exposures to the insured companies, and collectively to the overall market. First, traditional insurers are required to maintain a sufficient level of capital to pay on losses, while companies issuing CDSs were not. Since investments in pooled mortgages were viewed as unlikely to devalue or fail, major issuers of CDSs like AIG and Lehman Brothers found themselves over-exposed to losses. The second risk was that CDSs issued by one firm were typically hedged, or backed up financially, by CDSs with other companies. The strategy of minimizing risk by dividing it into collections of smaller exposures with other companies is a sound practice, but when the original risk is overexposed that overexposure is then spread across the companies that participate in the secondary risk markets.

[[AIG]], the world's largest insurance company, was a major player in the financial crisis because it sold $441 billion in unhedged and undercapitalized insurance on securitized debt, much of it tied to mortgage values. Normally an insurance company "lays off" some of the risk by taking out insurance with another company. AIG neglected to do this because it never expected the securities to turn toxic, which they did. Either someone paid the insurance or the nation's financial system would colapse, so the government stepped in, seized AIG, and paid the insurance.

The effect of these risks manifested themselves in two key ways. First, when major players in the CDS market like Bear Sterns and AIG were found to be insolvent, or failed outright like Lehman Brothers, the default conditions that were tied to the risk-spreading CDS's were triggered, and many companies found themselves obligated to pay out on contracts they never expected to. These sudden exposures led to capital and liquidity shortages at scores of firms involved in the secondary credit markets, and the default pattern started repeating on itself in an echo-like manner. Since the complex, interdependent nature of the CDS market made it difficult for firms to assess their true exposure to loss in this unprecedented market, they refrained from both short-term and long-term lending to guard against further losses. This essentially led to a freezing up of credit in the marketplace, as lenders refusing to give credit to other lenders translated into businesses and consumers being unable to get short-term operating loans, or borrow for homes, autos, student loans or credit-card accounts as before.

This freezing of the markets to avoid loss was the primary incentive for the U.S. government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which injected billions of dollars of government-backed funds into the credit markets to restore trust and liquidity.

==Bubble bursts==
[[File:Houses$.jpg|thumb|300px|Left|Crash of U.S. housing prices in 2007-09]]
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.
[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]
By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The Bush administration has refused to allow the money to be used to help the [[automobile]] industry. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker Timothy Geithner to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to use the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the House but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensions and medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama administration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM took place in the second quarter of 2009. Chrysler's sale to Italian automaker Fiat has been finalized. GM received billions more dollars to prevent bankruptcy but fell none-the-less. In addition, GM will require $30 billion in the first stage of bankruptcy. The Obama Administration is the single largest shareholder with the UAW second at 17% ownership. Also, many auto dealerships have been shuttered, thousands of workers have been [[laidoff]], assembly plants closed, and product lines dissolved or sold.

==Obama Administration==
[[Image:Geithner1.jpg|thumb|330px|Critics feared Geithner's vague plans would crash]]

The [[Obama Administration]], taking office on Jan. 20, 2009, moved to handle the crisis on two fronts. Working with Democrats in Congress (and three moderate Republican Senators), it passed the "[[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]]", calling for $500 billion of new spending and nearly $300 billion in new tax cuts. The new law began operations in mid-February, 2009, and supporters hoped it would slow and turn around the nosediving economy. Conservative critics feared it would be ineffective in the short run and add to the national debt and tax burdens in the long run. As of late March no results are visible.

With major banks on the verge of failure, Treasury Secretary [[Timothy Geithner]] unveiled yet another massive bailout program in mid-February. Trillions would be spent to move toxic assets out of the banks, but few details were provided. The widespread reaction was very negative, and Geithner lost more of his credibility as a problem solver. Geither finally came back with a plan on March 23 that will not need additional funding or approval by Congress. The Treasury will use $100 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as new capital from private investors, in order to generate $500 billion in purchasing power to buy toxic loans and assets. The program could potentially expand to $1 trillion over time.

===Criticisms===
:The nations banks now lend 25% less than when the financial bailout was announced.

: The USA relies on China to buy our U.S. Treasury bonds to fund the increased spending.

:America is a debtor nation, we spend more than we save. The dollars value has plummeted against world currencies. Gold prices remain at record levels.The money that we don't have, but spend, will be a debt that future generations will have to worry about. This has brought rise to the term 'Generational Theft' in describing Obama policies.

:"It's time to terminate the TARP program," Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, told reporters on Monday. "TARP is increasingly not being a vehicle for economic stability and taxpayer protection but is evolving into 700 billion dollar revolving slush fund that the administration can use to advance economic, social and political agenda items far and apart from what Tarp was ever designed to do." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/08/house-republican-moves-terminate-tarp/ House Republican Moves to 'Terminate the TARP'] Fox News, June 08, 2009</ref>

In the view of 51 mostly conservative economists polled by the ''Wall Street Journal'' in July 2009, the Obama administration's performance is problematic. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner both got an average grade of 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely. Former President Bush and ex-Treasury chief Paulson got average grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office. By contrast, Fed chairman Bernanke scores much better, with an average grade of 85; in addition 93% of respondents said he should be reappointed by Obama when Bernanke's term expires early next year.<ref>Phil Izzo, "Few Economists Favor More Stimulus," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708099206913393.html ''Wall Street Journal'' July 10, 2009] </ref>

==See also==
*[[Recession of 2008]]
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]
*[http://ow.ly/3klF The Bailout In Images]
==Further reading==
* Posner, Richard. ''A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression'' (2009), by a leading conservative
* Taylor, John B. ''Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis'' (2009), 92pp; by a leading conservative
====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]

Financial Crisis of 2008

2009-10-23T02:00:46Z

Brown25: Undo revision 712990 by Brown25 (Talk) May not be liberal vandalism but is incorrect

The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''', continuing into 2009, is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that is the worst the world has seen since 1933 with the [[Great Depression]]. Drastic measures to confront seemingly insurmountable financial calamity resulted in the creation of '''TARP''' (Troubled Assets Relief Program), $700 billion safety net by the U.S. Government. The National Bureau of Economic Research<ref>NBER is a private organization that follows its own standards as set by eminent economists such as [[Milton Friedman]]; its dating of business cycles is widely accepted by conservatives.</ref> has identified the peak of the last expansion in December 2007; the U.S. economy has been in decline ever since.<ref>See "Text of the NBER's statement on the recession and FAQ's" [http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-01-recession-nber-statement_N.htm ''USA Today'' Dec 1, 2008]. "The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said," at [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> [[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|330px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]] The crisis has caused the [[Recession of 2008]], which continues to worsen in 2009 into a worldwide economic decline that is the most severe since the 1930s.

The [[International Monetary Fund]] (IMF) calculates that the global financial crisis will produce $3.4 trillion in losses for financial institutions around the world between 2007 and 2010.<ref> Peter Dattels and Laura Kodres, "Global Financial System Shows Signs of Recovery, IMF Says," [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/RES093009A.htm ''IMF Survey Magazine'' Sept. 30, 2009]</ref>

==Overview==
Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and vitually every other sector of the economy. Consumer spending has plunged, and banks have been very reluctant to loan money. Major banks and corporations have gone bankrupt.

The recession is worldwide. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, but thus far the results have been inconclusive and the declines continue. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year in the U.S.). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else. Rush Limbaugh, for example, blames Obama.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide, especially in September 2008. The negative effects by October 2008 began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere. For the effects on the broader economy (outside of finance and autos) see [[Recession of 2008]].
The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.
[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed [[bridge to nowhere]], Dec. 1, 2008]]
Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Both the Bush and Clinton administrations made it a national priority to encourage more people to buy houses, assuming this social engineering would be good for everyone. In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and its expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; but President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans to poor neighborhoods comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

"Option adjustable rate mortgages" (nick-named "Pick-A-Pay") allowed borrowers to vary their monthly payments; they could be so so small they did not cover their interest charges. That meant the total principal grows over time, compared to normal mortgages where the debt owed shrinks over 30 years to zero and the borrower owns the house free and clear. By 2008 banks sold these dangerous "option adjustable rate" mortgages to two million customers. They made sense if and only if the price of houses kept going up and the borrower could sell it in a year ot two at a huge profit. But if house prices declined, the borrower could stop paying and the bank was left with the loss.

Timeline video showing Democrats opposing regulating housing market financing. President Bush, Senator McCain and Alan Greenspan all predicting financial collapse and offering regulation. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 See video]

The [[NYTimes]] says Senator [[Charles Schumer]] D-NY, is the most responsible for Wall Street's collapse. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14schumer.html A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits] NYTimes, December 13, 2008</ref> Schumer as a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, led efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, shield financial institutions from government oversight and tougher regulations, and saved key industry players billions of dollars in taxes and fees.

===Selling mortgage packages to big investors===
Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declined in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. The CDOs were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

===Misuse of Credit Default Swaps===
Another key contributing factor to the credit market meltdown was the misuse of Credit Default Swaps, or CDSs, which are contracts between entities designed to mitigate against risk of a credit default. A CDS is essentially an insurance policy designed to protect the insured party against excessive losses in a separate financial transaction. However, by structuring the contract as a derivative swap instead of a traditional insurance policy, companies other than regulated insurers could offer them. This created two critical risk exposures to the insured companies, and collectively to the overall market. First, traditional insurers are required to maintain a sufficient level of capital to pay on losses, while companies issuing CDSs were not. Since investments in pooled mortgages were viewed as unlikely to devalue or fail, major issuers of CDSs like AIG and Lehman Brothers found themselves over-exposed to losses. The second risk was that CDSs issued by one firm were typically hedged, or backed up financially, by CDSs with other companies. The strategy of minimizing risk by dividing it into collections of smaller exposures with other companies is a sound practice, but when the original risk is overexposed that overexposure is then spread across the companies that participate in the secondary risk markets.

[[AIG]], the world's largest insurance company, was a major player in the financial crisis because it sold $441 billion in unhedged and undercapitalized insurance on securitized debt, much of it tied to mortgage values. Normally an insurance company "lays off" some of the risk by taking out insurance with another company. AIG neglected to do this because it never expected the securities to turn toxic, which they did. Either someone paid the insurance or the nation's financial system would colapse, so the government stepped in, seized AIG, and paid the insurance.

The effect of these risks manifested themselves in two key ways. First, when major players in the CDS market like Bear Sterns and AIG were found to be insolvent, or failed outright like Lehman Brothers, the default conditions that were tied to the risk-spreading CDS's were triggered, and many companies found themselves obligated to pay out on contracts they never expected to. These sudden exposures led to capital and liquidity shortages at scores of firms involved in the secondary credit markets, and the default pattern started repeating on itself in an echo-like manner. Since the complex, interdependent nature of the CDS market made it difficult for firms to assess their true exposure to loss in this unprecedented market, they refrained from both short-term and long-term lending to guard against further losses. This essentially led to a freezing up of credit in the marketplace, as lenders refusing to give credit to other lenders translated into businesses and consumers being unable to get short-term operating loans, or borrow for homes, autos, student loans or credit-card accounts as before.

This freezing of the markets to avoid loss was the primary incentive for the U.S. government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which injected billions of dollars of government-backed funds into the credit markets to restore trust and liquidity.

==Bubble bursts==
[[File:Houses$.jpg|thumb|300px|Left|Crash of U.S. housing prices in 2007-09]]
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.
[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]
By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The Bush administration has refused to allow the money to be used to help the [[automobile]] industry. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker Timothy Geithner to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to use the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the House but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensions and medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama administration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM took place in the second quarter of 2009. Chrysler's sale to Italian automaker Fiat has been finalized. GM received billions more dollars to prevent bankruptcy but fell none-the-less. In addition, GM will require $30 billion in the first stage of bankruptcy. The Obama Administration is the single largest shareholder with the UAW second at 17% ownership. Also, many auto dealerships have been shuttered, thousands of workers have been [[laidoff]], assembly plants closed, and product lines dissolved or sold.

==Obama Administration==
[[Image:Geithner1.jpg|thumb|330px|Critics feared Geithner's vague plans would crash]]

The [[Obama Administration]], taking office on Jan. 20, 2009, moved to handle the crisis on two fronts. Working with Democrats in Congress (and three moderate Republican Senators), it passed the "[[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]]", calling for $500 billion of new spending and nearly $300 billion in new tax cuts. The new law began operations in mid-February, 2009, and supporters hoped it would slow and turn around the nosediving economy. Conservative critics feared it would be ineffective in the short run and add to the national debt and tax burdens in the long run. As of late March no results are visible.

With major banks on the verge of failure, Treasury Secretary [[Timothy Geithner]] unveiled yet another massive bailout program in mid-February. Trillions would be spent to move toxic assets out of the banks, but few details were provided. The widespread reaction was very negative, and Geithner lost more of his credibility as a problem solver. Geither finally came back with a plan on March 23 that will not need additional funding or approval by Congress. The Treasury will use $100 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as new capital from private investors, in order to generate $500 billion in purchasing power to buy toxic loans and assets. The program could potentially expand to $1 trillion over time.

===Criticisms===
:The nations banks now lend 25% less than when the financial bailout was announced.

: The USA relies on China to buy our U.S. Treasury bonds to fund the increased spending.

:America is a debtor nation, we spend more than we save. The dollars value has plummeted against world currencies. Gold prices remain at record levels.The money that we don't have, but spend, will be a debt that future generations will have to worry about. This has brought rise to the term 'Generational Theft' in describing Obama policies.

:"It's time to terminate the TARP program," Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, told reporters on Monday. "TARP is increasingly not being a vehicle for economic stability and taxpayer protection but is evolving into 700 billion dollar revolving slush fund that the administration can use to advance economic, social and political agenda items far and apart from what Tarp was ever designed to do." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/08/house-republican-moves-terminate-tarp/ House Republican Moves to 'Terminate the TARP'] Fox News, June 08, 2009</ref>

In the view of 51 mostly conservative economists polled by the ''Wall Street Journal'' in July 2009, the Obama administration's performance is problematic. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner both got an average grade of 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely. Former President Bush and ex-Treasury chief Paulson got average grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office. By contrast, Fed chairman Bernanke scores much better, with an average grade of 85; in addition 93% of respondents said he should be reappointed by Obama when Bernanke's term expires early next year.<ref>Phil Izzo, "Few Economists Favor More Stimulus," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708099206913393.html ''Wall Street Journal'' July 10, 2009] </ref>

==See also==
*[[Recession of 2008]]
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]
*[http://ow.ly/3klF The Bailout In Images]
==Further reading==
* Posner, Richard. ''A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression'' (2009), by a leading conservative
* Taylor, John B. ''Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis'' (2009), 92pp; by a leading conservative
====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]

Financial Crisis of 2008

2009-10-23T01:59:35Z

Brown25: Removed probable liberal vandalism

Financial Crisis of 2008

2009-10-23T01:46:53Z

Brown25: Removed probable liberal vandalism

Don Siegelman

2009-10-23T01:22:25Z

Brown25:

'''Donald Eugene "Don" Siegelman''' (born February 24, 1946, in Mobile, Alabama) is a former American Democratic politician. He was the governor of [[Alabama]] from 1999 to 2003. Don Siegelman is the only person in the history of Alabama to be elected to serve in all four of the top statewide offices:
* Secretary of State
* Attorney General
* Lieutenant Governor
* Governor

He served in Alabama politics for 26 years, winning his first election for the governorship with 57% of the vote, including over 90% of the African-American electorate.

He was defeated for reelection in November 2002 by Representative [[Bob Riley]]. He was defeated on the Democratic nomination for governor in 2006.

He was convicted in 2006 on charges of bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud <ref>http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070627/sentence.shtml</ref> and sentenced to 88 months in federal prison and being found guilty of 7 charges out of the 100 charges brought against him. His request to be freed on bond while awaiting appeal was denied.

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Siegelman,Don}}

[[Category:Alabama Governors]]
[[Category:Criminals]]

Minimum wage

2009-10-23T00:03:34Z

Brown25: These numbers were from May 2009, before the minimum wage hike

The '''minimum wage''' is the lowest wage that an employer may legally pay their workers. More than 90% of countries in the world have minimum wage laws.

Most countries have a minimum wage. The minimum wage in the United states was most recently raised to $5.85/hr, on July 24, 2007, in a bill created by California Representative George Miller and signed into law by [[George W. Bush]]. At this rate, a person working a 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year at minimum wage earns $12,168.00 for the year. The minimum wage is higher in many states, such as [[New Jersey]], due to state minimum wage laws.

==Political views==

The left wing in American politics tends to present a minimum wage as benefiting the lower class by helping to lift poor people out of poverty. Conservatives and libertarians generally counter this argument with statistics showing that every increase in the minimum wage has increased unemployment, especially among black inner city youth; see [[entry-level job]]s. It also obliges companies to outsource many jobs to China and the Third World.

Fiscal conservatives tend to oppose increases in the minimum wage because in a [[free market]], the price of labor, like any other commodity, should be set by negotiations between the buyer and seller without undue interference from the state.

[[Socialism|Socialists]], and many economic liberals, disagree with this view of labor as a commodity because they believe it dehumanizes laborers by permitting companies to pay employees less than necessary to live a decent life, support a family, etc; see [[living wage]]. Even without legislation, the minimum wage as of 2007 is far below the lowest wage paid by most large companies.<ref>Alan Renolds, [[Cato Institute]]. ''[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5409 Below the Minimum Wage]''</ref>

==Empirical evidence from the 2009 recession==

The 2009 recession gave a compelling picture of how an excessive minimum wage can exacerbate the employment climate. None of the five states with the lowest unemployment rates in May 2009, all below 5.5%, had a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage of $6.55. Five of of the six states with the highest unemployment rates, all above 11.2%, had minimum wages above the federal minimum wage. [[Oregon]], with a minimum wage of $8.40, had an unemployment rate of 12.4%. Generally, states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage had unemployment rates that were higher than states that did not have a higher minimum wage.<ref>[http://www.bls.gov/lau/ Bureau of Labor Statistics]</ref><ref>[http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm Department of Labor]</ref>

{| width="60%" class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
![[State]]
|Minimum Wage prior to 7/24/2009 increase
!Unemployment Rate as of 5/2009
|Minimum Wage Rank
!Unemployment Rate Rank
|-
![[Nebraska]]
|$6.55
!4.4%
|1
!1
|-
![[North Dakota]]
|$6.55
!4.4%
|1
!1
|-
![[South Dakota]]
|$6.55
!5.0%
|1
!3
|-
![[Wyoming]]
|$6.55
!5.0%
|1
!3
|-
![[Utah]]
|$6.55
!5.4%
|1
!5
|-
![[Iowa]]
|$7.25
!5.8%
|31
!6
|-
![[Oklahoma]]
|$6.55
!6.3%
|1
!7
|-
![[Montana]]
|$6.90
!6.3%
|23
!7
|-
![[New Hampshire]]
|$7.25
!6.5%
|31
!9
|-
![[New Mexico]]
|$7.50
!6.5%
|42
!9
|-
![[Louisiana]]
|$6.55
!6.6%
|1
!11
|-
![[Arkansas]]
|$6.55
!7.0%
|1
!12
|-
![[Kansas]]
|$6.55
!7.0%
|1
!12
|-
![[Texas]]
|$6.55
!7.1%
|1
!14
|-
![[Virginia]]
|$6.55
!7.1%
|1
!14
|-
![[Maryland]]
|$6.55
!7.2%
|1
!16
|-
![[Vermont]]
|$8.06
!7.3%
|49
!17
|-
![[Hawaii]]
|$7.25
!7.4%
|31
!18
|-
![[Colorado]]
|$7.28
!7.6%
|38
!19
|-
![[Idaho]]
|$6.55
!7.8%
|1
!20
|-
![[Connecticut]]
|$8.00
!8.0%
|45
!21
|-
![[Delaware]]
|$7.15
!8.1%
|25
!22
|-
![[Minnesota]]
|$6.55
!8.2%
|1
!23
|-
![[New York]]
|$7.15
!8.2%
|25
!23
|-
![[Pennsylvania]]
|$7.15
!8.2%
|25
!23
|-
![[Arizona]]
|$7.25
!8.2%
|31
!23
|-
![[Massachusetts]]
|$8.00
!8.2%
|45
!23
|-
![[Maine]]
|$7.25
!8.3%
|31
!28
|-
![[Alaska]]
|$7.15
!8.4%
|25
!29
|-
![[West Virginia]]
|$7.25
!8.6%
|31
!30
|-
![[New Jersey]]
|$7.15
!8.8%
|25
!31
|-
![[Wisconsin]]
|$6.55
!8.9%
|1
!32
|-
![[Missouri]]
|$7.05
!9.0%
|24
!33
|-
![[Washington]]
|$8.55
!9.4%
|51
!34
|-
![[Mississippi]]
|$6.55
!9.6%
|1
!35
|-
![[Georgia]]
|$6.55
!9.7%
|1
!36
|-
![[Alabama]]
|$6.55
!9.8%
|1
!37
|-
![[Illinois]]
|$8.00
!10.1%
|45
!38
|-
![[Florida]]
|$7.21
!10.2%
|30
!39
|-
![[Indiana]]
|$6.55
!10.6%
|1
!40
|-
![[Kentucky]]
|$7.25
!10.6%
|31
!40
|-
![[Tennessee]]
|$6.55
!10.7%
|1
!42
|-
![[District of Columbia]]
|$7.55
!10.7%
|43
!42
|-
![[Ohio]]
|$7.30
!10.8%
|39
!44
|-
![[North Carolina]]
|$6.55
!11.1%
|1
!45
|-
![[Nevada]]
|$7.55
!11.3%
|43
!46
|-
![[California]]
|$8.00
!11.5%
|45
!47
|-
![[South Carolina]]
|$6.55
!12.1%
|1
!48
|-
![[Rhode Island]]
|$7.40
!12.1%
|40
!48
|-
![[Oregon]]
|$8.40
!12.4%
|50
!50
|-
![[Michigan]]
|$7.40
!14.1%
|40
!51
|}

==See Also==

* [[Maximum wage]]

==Sources==

{{reflist}}

==References==
<references />
[[category:economics]][[category:political Terms]][[category:law]]

General Motors

2009-10-22T00:03:09Z

Brown25:

'''General Motors''' (GM) automobile manufacturing company was founded in 1908 by William C. Durant, and rose to become the world's leading auto manufacturers from the 120s to 2008, with plants in the United States, Canada and Europe. In 2006, over 9 million GM cars and trucks were sold. Since then a series of massive losses have brought GM to the verge of bankruptcy. Where once it had a 50% share of the market for new vehicles in the United States, the company hopes at best to at least hang on to its current 18% share in the face of fierce competition from Asian makers, and a [[Recession of 2008|recession]] that has forced millions of people to postpone major purchases.

Some of the popular brands of autos designed, produced and marketed by GM include:
*[[Buick]]
*[[Cadillac]]
*[[Chevrolet]]
*[[GMC]]

Brands that are slated to be sold or closed:
*[[Hummer]]
*[[Pontiac]]
*[[Saab]]
*[[Saturn (car)|Saturn]]
* Oldsmobile was closed in 2004.

GM headquarters is located in [[Detroit]], and the company manufactures cars and trucks in 33 countries, employing about 284,000 people globally in 2006, but far fewer in 2009.
==History==
General Motors was originally formed by joining several independent companies: the Olds Motor Vehicle Company, owned by Ransom E. Olds, (maker of the [[Oldsmobile]]); Cadillac Automobile Company owned by Henry M. Leland; Buick Motor Company, founded by David Dunbar Buick, and the Oakland Motor Car Co, the original maker of the Pontiac.

One former head of General Motors, John Z. DeLorean, went on to start his own car company, Delorean Motors, and manufactured the [[DeLorean]] car, famed for its role in the move "Back to the Future"

==Crisis of 2008-9==
see [[Recession of 2008]]

GM went into crisis mode in 2008 as sales fell in half, with dealers' lots jammed with unsold cars. Losses mounted and only emergency loans from the federal government, approved by President [[George W. Bush]], staved off bankruptcy, but the danger perists. On March 29, 2009, the [[Obama Administration]] forced the head of GM to resign, and on March 30 issued a do-or-die ultimatum for the struggling industry, demanding strict financial standards that the carmakers must meet to get more government aid; Obama declared that their industry must survive because it is "like no other, an emblem of the American spirit." In late April 2009 GM announced further downsizing that will reduce its American workforce to 38,000 union employees in 34 plants, compared with 395,000 at 150 plants at its peak in 1970. Nearly half the dealerships will close, striking hard at the economy of many small cities. To restructure itself GM will need to borrow another $11.6 billion from the government. <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/28auto.html?hp Bill Vlasic And Nick Bunkley, "G.M.’S Latest Plan Envisions a Much Smaller Automaker," '' New York Times'' April 27, 2009]</ref>
On June first, however, the Obama Administration allowed this once great company to file for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.
==See Also==
* [[Automobile]]
*[[General Motors Corp. v. Tracy]]
*[[United States v. General Motors Corp.]]

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/
*http://www.nndb.com/company/018/000046877/
*http://www.ugs.com/about_us/press/press.shtml?id=5464

[[Category:United States Businesses]] [[Category:Commerce]][[Category:Cars]][[Category:Socialism]]

Socialism

2009-10-20T22:40:22Z

Brown25:

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!" This is Leninism, a nasty version of socialism]]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system of government which advocates state ownership or control of the means of production or distribution of goods or services<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref>. The central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer. (People sometimes are allowed to have small gardens.) The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership of the means of production.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.

{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

There are three main kinds of Socialism, but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

==Leninism==
First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. The first version is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from clothes and some personal possessions) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity. Conservatives have been very hostile. China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.

Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an "[[Iron Curtain]]" to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.

==Democratic Socialism==
The second form (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

Communist persecution notwithstanding, the earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with the aims of socialism. Acts 4:32-5:11 not only describes community redistribution of property, but describes punishment of a husband and wife for failing to completely share the proceeds from selling their land.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

== Britain, the Labor Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.

Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many "[[progressive]]" measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.<ref>[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]</ref> In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]]; however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Different Strands of Socialism==
*[[Communism]]
*[[Social democracy]]
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)
*[[Fascism]]
*[[Welfare state]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Socialism]]

Socialism

2009-10-20T22:39:48Z

Brown25: The Stimulus package was socialism even though there is not equal distribution of goods. Definition refined.

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!" This is Leninism, a nasty version of socialism]]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system of government which advocates state ownership or control of the means of production and distribution of goods or services<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref>. The central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer. (People sometimes are allowed to have small gardens.) The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership of the means of production.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.

{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

There are three main kinds of Socialism, but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

==Leninism==
First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. The first version is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from clothes and some personal possessions) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity. Conservatives have been very hostile. China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.

Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an "[[Iron Curtain]]" to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.

==Democratic Socialism==
The second form (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

Communist persecution notwithstanding, the earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with the aims of socialism. Acts 4:32-5:11 not only describes community redistribution of property, but describes punishment of a husband and wife for failing to completely share the proceeds from selling their land.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

== Britain, the Labor Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.

Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many "[[progressive]]" measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.<ref>[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]</ref> In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]]; however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Different Strands of Socialism==
*[[Communism]]
*[[Social democracy]]
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)
*[[Fascism]]
*[[Welfare state]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Socialism]]

Wikipedia

2009-10-20T22:34:52Z

Brown25:

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

'''Wikipedia''' is a self-described online [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> project written and edited by an adhoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK)<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>, teenagers and unemployed persons.
The project was initiated by two [[atheism|atheists]]: [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001. Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Origins==

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a [[conservative bias]]. [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==

An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility, and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.
[[Image:Prouty1.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (1917 - 2001).]]
[[Chip Berlet]] built a career writing in various far-left [[revolution]]ary publications, including ''[[Guardian (NY)]]'' of New York,<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Preface & Acknowledgements. Berlet writes, "John Stockwell gave an interview even though he felt my "Guardian" article on Craig Hulet implied Stockwell was an ally of "Bo" Gritz. That was not my intent, and I regret any misunderstanding and appreciate Mr. Stockwell's patience. Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains very useful, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective." The ''Guardian'' article is cited at PublicEye.org, "Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left," ''The Guardian'' (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]</ref> founded by [[KGB]] agent [[Cedric Belfrage]], whose writers at times included KGB operatives [[Anna Louise Strong]], [[Agnes Smedley]] and [[Wilfred Burchett]]. Burchett was a long time personal friend of [[Ho Chi Minh]],<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613596-5012694,00.html Losing it in Nam], ''The Australian'', October 20, 2007.</ref> assisted in extracting confessions from American [[POW]]s in the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/rebel_reporter/ A Rebel Reporter], Book Review by Bertil Lintner, Asia Pacific Media Services, August 2006.</ref> and spread [[disinformation]] about American use of [[germ warfare]] which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the [[Kremlin]].<ref>Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.</ref>

Berlet and Daniel Brandt wrote for the ''[[Covert Action Information Bulletin]]'' in the 1970s, and Brandt wrote for ''[[CounterSpy]]'' magazine, edited by [[Philip Agee]] and [[Timothy Butz]]. Butz was also on the editorial staff of ''[[The Public Eye]]''<ref>"Public Eye Staff," The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.</ref> with Berlet as managing editor<ref>''The Public Eye'', Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).</ref> and which Berlet describes as a "spawn of the first ''Counterspy''."<ref>Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, ''Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression,'' (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91).</ref> ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the names of several [[CIA]] agents,<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948672,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Dirty Work], ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Oct. 02, 1978.</ref> including CIA Athens Station Chief [[Richard S. Welch]] who was murdered by the [[terrorist]] [[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]] in 1975<ref>''[[Washington Post]]'', [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29,+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch Obituary: Richard S. Welch], 29 December 1975, A16. ISBN 01908286 </ref> and gave the impetus for passage of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]].<ref>For The Record, ''Washington Post'', 27 July 1980. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051101.asp]</ref> Berlet was also a member of Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme [[leftism]] demands ideological purity from its followers. Berlet made an ultimatum to remove another Board member.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included, in Berlet's words, "LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. Berlet considered Prouty a [[fascist]]. Brandt retorted, "When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5315&pid=18679&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry18679</ref> Berlet further sought to undermine Brandt by convincing three others to quit, adding "He (Brandt) was mad"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> but admitting "On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Part 033 ''The JFK Conspiracy'' - November 22, 1993. Retrieved from the Nizkor Project, October 29, 2007.</ref>

The WikiMedia Foundation retains Berlet, despite his penchant for excess,<ref>Brandt notes, "Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist." [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/SQ]</ref> to deal with the ceaseless barrage of idiosyncratic musings from the followers of [[Lyndon LaRouche]].

=== Impugning critics ===

'''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''' requires,
{{Cquote|without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles.}}
Berlet complained about criticism in his Wikipedia biographical entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and the organization he is associated with, [[Political Research Associates]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=24242896</ref> One critic was blasted in the article mainspace with an unsourced, unspecified rebuttal by Berlet as "unethical;" when an editor asked if the charge by Berlet could be substantiated the editor was rebuked and accused of "harassing a controversial expert."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2#Laird_Wilcox</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Dispute_Resolution_Process</ref> Another reliable source in the article read,
{{Cquote|one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s 'crusade' against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.' <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory], By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com October 16, 2003.</ref>}}
Berlet stated, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and a Daniel Brandt entry on Wikipedia soon was created. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible. Brandt observed, "I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry21441</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6666&pid=23072&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry23072</ref><ref>SlimVirgin stated on stated 21:57, Dec 28, 2004, "Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_1 Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1], and at 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source"[http://www.talkaboutalternative.com/group/alt.conspiracy/messages/1164072.html]</ref>

'''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Self-published sources''' states,
[[Image:25may2006cberlet2.GIF|thumb|300px|right|Berlet inserts highly inflammatory, guilt by association material cited to himself; the slanders remained for at least 16 months.]]
{{Cquote|Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources</ref>}}
'''Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Reliable sources''' states,
{{Cquote|Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the '''No original research''' and '''Verifiability''' policies, and could lead to [[libel]] claims....Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links...Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory...<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources</ref>}}
Brandt is also a registered user at Wikipedia, hence '''No Personal Attacks''' and '''Civility''' clauses apply, in addition to '''What Wikipedia is Not''', a vehicle for propaganda, advertising or self-promotion, and '''Wikipedia is not a battleground'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground</ref>

'''Wikipedia:No Original Research''', which has undergone several revisions, at the time stated, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge...If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere...the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person...They must cite reliable, third-party publications... bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=50820065#The_role_of_expert_editors</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Citing_oneself</ref>
'''Wikipedia:Ownership of articles''' prohibits asserting ownership over articles, particularly where a [[conflict of interest]] may arise. Chip Berlet has been cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee on several occasions about over involvement in his Wikipedia biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Arbitration_report</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_regarding_autobiography</ref> When Berlet was unable to have criticism sourced to Brandt removed from his entry, Berlet dredged up a 16 year old highly inflammatory and vicious [[guilt by association]] smear against Brandt to elevate Berlet's own personal credibility and further undermine Brandt as a reputable critic of Chip Berlet. Berlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.



=== What is a reputable source? ===

[[Image:Americanextremist.JPG|thumb|300px|right|[http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,'']John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, Chapter 9, ''[[Guardian]]'', pgs. 125-131. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)]]
Several official Wikipedia policies were rewritten<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=31675236&oldid=31668491 Wikipedia:No original research], Revision as of 00:21, 17 December 2005; SlimVirgin removes the language, "Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."</ref>and modified at various times to exempt [[Chip Berlet]] from provisions and applications. Enforcement of basic civility clauses and no personal attacks regarding Berlet's conduct are routinely ignored. Berlet considers himself an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, but was unanimously rejected by several key and influential Wikipedia Administrators<ref>"I, '''Jayjg''', hereby award you this '''Barnstar''' for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of '''reliable sources''' at '''Holocaust Denial'''. 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goodoldpolonius2&diff=41765875&oldid=40600697], retrieved from WP/User:Goodoldpolonius2, October 14, 2007.</ref><ref>Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2005. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20507026&oldid=20505285]</ref> as a reputable source<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20321342&oldid=20321025 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/Deep problems with the article], Revision as of 07:17, 5 August 2005, Goodoldpolonius2; "the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century)....The racial anti-Semitism section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20321341#Racial_anti-Semitism not factually correct]."</ref> for the Wikipedia [[mainspace]] article, "Roots of Anti-Semitism" in 2005. As of October 2007, Wikipedia's '''Reliable sources/Extremist sources''' policy stated,
{{Cquote|Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as [[extremist]], whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extreme sources], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007.</ref>}}
High level Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin, in a remarkably transparent action removed herself as a defendant<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], SlimVirgin (→Rangerdude - moved Katefan's); SlimVirgin made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21732881 '''involved third party: Katefan0'''] a full party to take her place in the case after ArbCom voted to Accept. Katefan0 it was discovered later was Kathryn Wolfe of ''Congressional Quarterly'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=2f1782927c11d7a9e62cf6815238337d&showtopic=7603&view=findpost&p=25526][http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=thissite_masthead] accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Wolfe lost her Senate press credentials when an undisclosed [[conflict of interest]] came to light regarding her activities as an anonymous Wikipedia Administrator. Wolfe was promoted to a Wikipedia Administrator after her role in the frame up of the complaining party. Wolfe initiated Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures over an article about a former employer, the ''Houston Chronicle''. The facts were made known to ArbCom. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was a policy, and not a guideline. Several parties were known to enter Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures, signing an agreement to participate in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in a public forum accessible to Google search engines, without recourse, and both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and WikiMedia Foundation turned a blind eye to the situation.</ref> from Wikipedia's internal policy making and self-regulatory process governing user conduct known as Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee voted to accept a complaint filed against her<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude], Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".</ref> to review her conduct. SlimVirgin made the Complaining party the defendant, removed herself, and placed a third party, User:Katefan0 in her place. SlimVirgin then presented evidence in the same case which stated,
{{Cquote|'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).</ref>}}
The Complaining party stated,
{{Cquote|the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?], Revision as of 21:49, 4 August 2005, Rangerdude.</ref>}}
Nonetheless, reprisal actions were taken against the Complaining party who exposed the duplicity of Wikipedia internal regulatory processes and favoritism granted to an extreme [[leftist]] writer.

=== Jimbo Wales chooses sides in the dispute ===

The negative publicity engendered by the Seigenthaler and Brandt cases put Wikipedia into crisis management mode. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From [[WikiTruth]], the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source of criticism on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry, yet another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain Brandt's biography simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. As in the Seigenthaler controversy, Brandt once again demanded accountability, this time from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own background which would deny him inclusion as a source on anything other than himself.

Brandt is now known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

===First casualty: a Congressional correspondent gets canned===

The first casualty in the war between Brandt and the Wikipedia Admin community<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7785&st=0&p=26282&#entry26282</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615</ref> was a reporter for ''Congressional Quarterly'' and accredited to the [[U.S. Senate]] Press Gallery.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&pid=7935&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry7935</ref> User:Katefan0 was a member of the Association of Immoral Wikimedians<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=243978&oldid=243977</ref> founded by [[Jimbo Wales]].<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=232409&oldid=230690</ref> Brandt stated,
[[Image:Washington 05 183.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Katefan was accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery; ArbCom knew of some her conflicts of interest.]]
{{Cquote|One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the ''Congressional Quarterly'', even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in [[Washington DC]] that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious [[conflict of interest]] to the extent that it was not disclosed.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1422&view=findpost&p=7935</ref>}}

Katefan outed herself<ref>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/KinF/messages/1416?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1</ref> but Brandt conceded the circumstances surrounding her exit from Wikipedia damaged his reputation. Meantime the issue of accountability at the forefront of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]] was all but forgotten as privacy concerns of anonymous Administrators surmounted defamations of innocent real life people whose identity was known.

Katefan initiated '''Wikipedia:Dispute resolution''' with a knowledgeable conservative editor over various controversies on the ''Houston Chronicle'' article, including references to the ''Chronicle's'' coverage of [[Republican]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom Delay]]. Katefan had in fact worked for the ''Houston Chronicle'' during many of these controversies,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14272141</ref> was using Original Research and admitted to being friends with editors and reporters on the ''Chronicle'' staff.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Archive_1#Response</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14339760</ref> Katefan removed properly sourced examples of the ''Chronicle's'' Editorial Board and her former co-workers [[hate speech]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=next&oldid=14285136</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14285136</ref> which included references to prominent Republicans as a subhuman species. Katefan's [[conflict of interest]] was made known to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14282308</ref> For her assistance in silencing, and ultimately harassing a knowledgeable conservative editor out of the project with an Arbitration ruling of "tendentious editing,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#POV_editing_by_Rangerdude</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Rangerdude_placed_on_probation</ref> Katefan was promoted to Admin.

Not long after, another professional journalist politely protested Wikipedia's exceedingly biased entries about [[Paul Weyrich]]. Patently false information about Weyrich was cited to none other than Chip Berlet, with the customary alleged "links and ties" to "fascist" [[Dominionism]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dominionism/Archive_1#latest_removal</ref> Berlet's latest ideological crusade. The user admitted to being a member of the same Melkite [[Catholic]] parish as Mr. Weyrich,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Well_referenced_but_biased_sources Talk:Paul Weyrich#Well referenced but biased sources]</ref> and offered to volunteer his professional expertise to improve Wikipedia's Dominionism series and bring neutral balance. The editor was instructed point blank by high level Wikipedia Administrators, "people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich User talk:Pravknight#Paul Weyrich]</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/060162.html ; Berlet circumvented official WP:Dispute Resolution by posting "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this..." at Wikien-1 and asked someone else to nominate '''Category:Soviet spies''' for deletion while the issue was being Mediated. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was policy and participants signed a Mediation pledge to participate in Good Faith [http://encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Good_faith]. Berlet's conflict of interest can be seen in (1) personal association with ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York, (2) personal association with [[Harry Magdoff]], (3) personal connection with ''CounterSpy'' magazine. ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the true identities of living CIA officials, and lead to creation of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]]. Berlet it appears never had a problem with exposing the real life identities of living CIA agents but has fought strenuously to keep deceased identities of [[KGB]] agents out of Wikipedia. Two years after Berlet circumvented policy, '''Category:Soviet spies''' has not been deleted.</ref> and of course, profiled as a conservative, was banned for "tendentious editing."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight#Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?] The editor stated, "why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harassment."</ref>

By March 2007 Katefan's name was no longer on the Senate Press Gallery list.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&#entry25526</ref>

=== Second casualty: Wikipedia "experts" called into question, the Essjay Scandal ===

On April 29-30, 2005 a conference of [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" <ref>[http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-June/018692.html ''Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"'']</ref> was held a CUNY. Berlet spoke at the forum and Doug Ireland reported,
{{Cquote|Nobody at the national level is tracking these ''[[Christer]]''<ref>[http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html Religious Right Watch''] July 10, 2005.</ref> censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. 'People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at [[Political Research Associates]] would love to do it,' says Berlet, 'but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it ....' <ref>[http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/the_new_blackli.html ''The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers''], Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.</ref>}}
Wikipedia had the resources, Political Research Associates began tracking them, and the “strategies to defeat them” were carried into the battleground of Wikipedia. Berlet's massive, “Dominionism” series, a compendium of anti-Christian screeds best characterized by Stanley Kurtz of the ''[[National Review]]'', who also reported on the conference, claims the "real agenda" of the Religious Right is to,
{{Cquote|suppress other religions ...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-marital, extramarital, or homosexual sex and ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp ''Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory.''] Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.</ref>}}

Ten days later on May 10 Essjay posted on his user page,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#Your_.22apologies.22_sound_fake</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23005</ref>
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 

My Academic Degrees: 
* Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
* Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
* Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
* Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) 
</blockquote>

Essjay was nominated for Admin on July 13, 2005 and in accepting he wrote, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to [[Roman Catholicism]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=18741394&oldid=18741092</ref>
An anonymous IP commented, "I have read several of Essjay's articles on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=19090368&oldid=19089436</ref> His Adminship was completed one week later with near unanimous support.

After serving in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations such as Administrator General of Esperanza and official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels, Essjay was elected a Bureaucrat on March 31, 2006.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay</ref>

==== Hoaxes perpetrated against academics and mainstream media ====

On April 7, 2006 one week after moving into his new role as a Bureaucrat Essjay sent an email to a professor in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. The professor had told her students, "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source." The email is not of a personal nature and Essjay clearly represents himself as speaking for Wikipedia and posted a verbatim copy for others to use. The letter stated:
{{Cquote|I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology... I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." ... Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. ...

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. ...'''It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia'''; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before. (''bolden added'') <ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

Of the two hundred thousand registered users, and the nearly one thousand administrators with powers to block others from editing, Essjay was one of only 14 with Checkuser rights, a responsibility which has always been the cause of grave privacy concerns and only given to those who have earned the trust of the WikiMedia Foundation. Essjay was recommended to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff of ''The New Yorker'' by a member of Wikipedia’s management team<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote Know It All], Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, by Stacy Schiff ''The New Yorker'', July 31, 2006; Editor's Note appended.</ref> and would not identify himself other than confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>
In a piece entitled, ''Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?'', Schiff wrote,
[[Image:Schiffstacy 3l.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff was hoaxed by Essjay and Wikipedia's management team.[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote] ]]
{{Cquote|One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries. A tenured professor of religion at a private university...

Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee. Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed...

Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. }}

''The New Yorker'' unwittingly published the deceptive information on Essjay's credentials in its July 31, 2006 issue. The same month Brandt pointed out at Wikipedia Review,<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701</ref> a forum frequented by prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day.

In August 2006, a professional journalist who attended the same Catholic parish as [[Paul Weyrich]] of the [[Free Congress Foundation]] protested the patently false information about Weyrich. Weyrich was [[politically profiled]] as a right-wing "theocratic dominionist." Wikipedia's [[Dominionism]] entry, authored by Berlet, stated in its opening sentence, "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=83649766&oldid=83640075</ref> There was one big problem, Weyrich is Catholic. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Inaccurate_information Talk:Paul Weyrich#Inaccurate information]</ref> By now Essjay was becoming established as Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell User:Essjay/RFC/Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell], 2 March 2007.</ref>

====The Wikipedia Review forum====

On January 7, 2007, Essjay outed his own true life identity on his user page at Wikia.<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png</ref> A site administrator at Wikipedia Review posted on January 11 the Essjay user page at Wikia had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees and noted there was no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The same administrator posted further details <ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992</ref> of discrepancies between Essjay's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19, after Essjay added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

Essjay claimed on February 2 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel before he accepted the position.<ref>Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC), [http://web.archive.org/web/20071105191108/www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html User:Essjay/Archives/52]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_"his_positions_of_trust"_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962 Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees], Wikinews.</ref><ref>http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/05/one-last-brief-comment-on-the-essjay-scandal/</ref> It was apparent Essjay had lied.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref> Brandt sought to contact Stacy Schiff with the information, and expressed disillusionment over the next several weeks at not receiving a response.

Brandt sent several letters regarding his own biography to the Foundation Legal Department and never received a response. On February 3 Florence Devouard, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation announced Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html Executive director], Florence Devouard, Feb 3 21:47:48 UTC 2007.</ref>
[[Image:Mania-logo.gif|thumb|300px|right|The 2006 ''WikiMania'' Conference was held in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]], August 4-6.]]
Ken Myers, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and author of ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia''<ref>[http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2 ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia'']</ref> presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts<ref>http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM1</ref> is known in the community as Ksm10. Myers registered an account at Wikipedia Review on February 21, 2007<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1003</ref> and spent several hours which included a discussion with Brandt on Section 230 issues. Brandt had been arguing for months that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the WikiMedia Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia and that the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only internet service providers are immune from liability for libelous content under Section 230.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpost&p=19429</ref> Brandt's efforts to get Wikipedia to remove the libelous information about him attracted a lot of attention, and was even being studied in a Cyberlaw class at [[Harvard]].<ref>
Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability Day 3. A Potential Solution: Intermediary Liability] 2007 Winter Term.</ref>

Two days later one of the lesser known occurrences in the explosive maze of events of February 23 happened when Wikipedia Administrator Yanksox registered an account at Wikipedia Review.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014</ref> Curiously enough, Yanksox spent several hours perusing the site where the background material on Berlet and SlimVirgin's efforts to discredit Brandt is laid out but never posted anything in Wikipedia Review for still another two months. In a bizarre turn of events and without discussing with anyone, Yanksox suddenly executed what Brandt had been asking for 15 months: invoking '''Ignore All Rules''' ('''IAR''') policy, Yanksox deleted the Brandt biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=110357260</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence</ref> The page had been nominated for deletion numerous times, but always failed to win the necessary support in Wikipedia's mind-numbing bureaucratic processes. Yanksox stated his reasons as "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Yanksox&page=Daniel+Brandt</ref> then performed a "kamikaze dive" by deleting his own user page.

It was now common knowledge among critics at the Wikipedia Review forum and many of Wikipedia's so-called "inner cabal" that gross distortions and lies had been used to advance Essjay within the organization and perpetrated against a mainstream news source with a good reputation for fact checking. Many of the more mature Wiki Admins now saw the wisdom of ending the dispute with Brandt which was claiming more and more dupes with no understanding of the root of the dispute. In the midst of the firestorm over Yanksox out of process deletion that same day, Jimbo Wales announced Essjay's appointment to the Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html</ref>

Three days later, on February 26, Brandt received and posted a response from the Deputy Editor of ''The New Yorker'' stating a retraction would be published in the March 5 issue including the comment, "which comes out today."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23635</ref> Wikia’s public relations firm made Essjay’s response to ''The New Yorker''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111710102&oldid=111704869</ref>

====The scandal breaks====

When the scandal broke it was [[international]] in scope with ABC News,<ref name="ABC video">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=ABC News broadcast on Essjay|accessdate=2007-03-08}}</ref> Associated Press,<ref name="Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046
|work=[[ABC News]]
|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-26
}}</ref> BBC,<ref name="BBC">{{cite news
| title = Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
| work = [[BBC News]]
| date = March 6, 2007
| accessdate = 2007-03-16
}}</ref> USA Today,<ref name="BrianBergstein">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
|publisher=[[USA Today]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-25
}}</ref> London Daily Telegraph,<ref name=Jardine>{{cite news
|first=Cassandra
|last=Jardine
|title=Fount of all wisdom – and foolery
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/08/nosplit/ftwiki108.xml
|publisher=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''
|section= Features
|date=March 8, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=21
|quote =}}</ref> London Guardian,<ref name="Guardian">Finkelstein, Seth. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html "Read me first"], ''[[The Guardian|The London Guardian]]'', March 8, 2007.</ref> Le Monde,<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=979865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01 Wikipédia, à visage découvert], Olivier Dumons, LE MONDE.FR 08 Mars 2007.</ref> The Register,<ref name="Farewell, Wikipedia?">{{cite web
| url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
| title = Farewell, Wikipedia?
| accessdate = 2007-03-18
| last = Orlowski
| first = Andrew
| authorlink = Andrew Orlowski
| date = March 6, 2007
| work = Music and Media
| publisher = [[The Register]]
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}
</ref> Newsweek,<ref name=Keen>{{cite news
|first=Steven
|last=Levy
|title=Invasion of the web amateurs
|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/36171
|publisher=[[Newsweek]]
|section=The Technologist
|date=March 26, 2007
|accessdate=
|page=16
|quote =}}</ref> BusinessWeek,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070321_174505.htm?chan=search|title=Wikipedia's Not the Net Police|author=B.L.Ochman|publisher=''[[BusinessWeek]]''|date=2007-03-22|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref> CNSNews,<ref name=Bozell>{{cite news
|first=L. Brent
|last=Bozell III
|title=Not Your Father's Encyclopedia
|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/archive/2007/col20070321.asp
|publisher=CNSNews.com
|section=
|date=March 21, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=
|quote =}}</ref> Boston Globe<ref name=Beam>{{cite news
|first=Alex
|last=Beam
|title=Tricky truths behind Wikipedia
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/03/12/tricky_truths_behind_wikipedia/
|publisher=''[[Boston Globe]]''
|section=LivingGarts
|date=March 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=E5
|quote =}}</ref> and Sydney Morning Herald<ref name="LarrySanger2002">{{cite news
|first =
|last =
|authorlink =
|title = More than just a war of words
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-just-a-war-of-words/2007/04/21/1176697134712.html
|work =
|publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
|pages =
|date = April 21, 2007
|accessdate = 2007-04-23
}}</ref> all reporting on it. The reaction within the Wikipedia Community was largely a feeling of shock, anger, and betrayal. Many ''bona fide'' experts and academics quit in disgust.<ref>[http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html Sand Castles of Knowledge], Kyle Gann, May 5, 2007.</ref>

Jimbo Wales' handpicked Arbitrator of civility began name-calling and attacked "Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies;"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111701367&oldid=111700836</ref> however this excuse rings hollow since Essjay posted the bogus credentials long before the Katefan controversy, and shortly after the campaign against Brandt's credibility began months before Brandt was ever involved, or even aware of it. Essjay also blamed ''The New Yorker'' :
{{Cquote|I’m also sorry the ''New Yorker'' chose to print what they did…no respectable publication would print it.”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285</ref>}}''The New Yorker'' retraction quoted Jimbo saying, "I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref> Estranged co-founder [[Larry Sanger]], who is probably recognized as Wales most respected critic, confronted Wales,
{{Cquote|Look, either you hired him thinking he was a tenured professor, or you hired him knowing he was a fraud. There wasn't a third option. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#not_a_violoation_of_trust.3F.21 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20], March 2 - 5, 2007.</ref>}}

A longtime editor from the very earliest days of the Wikipedia project, named JHK, after hearing [[Andrew Schlafly]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307.ram<</ref> founder of Conservapedia speak told Jimbo Wales,
{{Cquote|he is right about there being a cadre of people who tend to get their way on editorial matters. Perhaps that's part of the social engineering experiment that is part of Wikipedia. But when a member of that cadre has clearly abused his position based in part on lies he told to get that position, and the cadre circles wagons ...?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20</ref>}}

''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' noted,
{{Cquote|Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.<ref>{{cite news |title= Essjay, the Ersatz Academic|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070305162127/http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 |publisher= ''The Chronicle of Higher Education''|date= March 2 2007|last=Read|first=Brock}}</ref>}}

Six weeks after Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced Brad Patrick resuming his role as General Counsel to focus on addressing "a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces," Patrick resigned.<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html Brad Patrick Resigns as General Counsel], Brad Patrick, Mar 22 19:01:14 UTC 2007</ref>

===What did Jimbo know and when did he know it? ===

On April 11, 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation published as part of its Privacy policy for Checkuser rights a requirement for disclosure of the identification of Administrator to the Foundation. At the time of Essjay's appointment to Checkuser, several prominant Wikipedians expressed concern over the trustworthiness of Checkusers. Here is how Essjay addressed the gravity of their concerns:
{{Cquote|We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of life and death. ''Life and death.''<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020054.html [Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?], Essjay Mon Apr 17 06:14:53 UTC 2006.</ref>}}
An editor asked, "I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and [another Admin] are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the Foundation board." The other Checkuser Admin responded,
{{Cquote|the fact that Essjay and I are well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006776.html Foundation-l new checkuser policy] Essjay, Fri Apr 21 19:22:21 UTC 2006</ref>}}

===Cracks in the dam===

Wikipedia reached a milestone in its history on October 12, 2007, when Wikipedia "controversial and knowledgeable expert" [[Chip Berlet]] received his first block for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet] Berlet, who had written for [[extremist]] publications<ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+"experts":+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451 Expertly using "experts": leftist media organs selectively use so-called experts to propagandize the masses on behalf of a statist agenda. (Expert Opinion)].</ref><ref>John George and Laird Wilcox, [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, (ISBN 0-87975-680-2), pgs. 125-131.</ref> throughout his career, had achieved a special "controversial expert" exemption from virtually all Wikipedia's written policies. This exemption from policy extended to citing self, no original research, no self promotion, incivility and personal attacks, and other policies.

In the wake of the Essjay scandal, and questions surrounding Berlet's conduct toward non-LaRouche editors, Wikipedia appears to be moving away from the "expert" designation, and now uses the term "knowledgeable editor."

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10360&view=findpost&p=36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense [[group-think]] Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

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

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.

[[Category:Wikis]]

Wikipedia

2009-10-03T22:40:59Z

Brown25: I don't know which editor removed the fact that Wikipedia is only a "self-described" encyclopedia. We had this discussion back several months ago with Andy and Addison, and me I believe.

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

'''Wikipedia''' is a self-described online [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> written and edited by an adhoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK)<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>, teenagers and unemployed persons.
The project was initiated by two [[atheism|atheists]]: [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001. Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Origins==

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a [[conservative bias]]. [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==

An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility, and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.
[[Image:Prouty1.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (1917 - 2001).]]
[[Chip Berlet]] built a career writing in various far-left [[revolution]]ary publications, including ''[[Guardian (NY)]]'' of New York,<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Preface & Acknowledgements. Berlet writes, "John Stockwell gave an interview even though he felt my "Guardian" article on Craig Hulet implied Stockwell was an ally of "Bo" Gritz. That was not my intent, and I regret any misunderstanding and appreciate Mr. Stockwell's patience. Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains very useful, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective." The ''Guardian'' article is cited at PublicEye.org, "Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left," ''The Guardian'' (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]</ref> founded by [[KGB]] agent [[Cedric Belfrage]], whose writers at times included KGB operatives [[Anna Louise Strong]], [[Agnes Smedley]] and [[Wilfred Burchett]]. Burchett was a long time personal friend of [[Ho Chi Minh]],<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613596-5012694,00.html Losing it in Nam], ''The Australian'', October 20, 2007.</ref> assisted in extracting confessions from American [[POW]]s in the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/rebel_reporter/ A Rebel Reporter], Book Review by Bertil Lintner, Asia Pacific Media Services, August 2006.</ref> and spread [[disinformation]] about American use of [[germ warfare]] which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the [[Kremlin]].<ref>Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.</ref>

Berlet and Daniel Brandt wrote for the ''[[Covert Action Information Bulletin]]'' in the 1970s, and Brandt wrote for ''[[CounterSpy]]'' magazine, edited by [[Philip Agee]] and [[Timothy Butz]]. Butz was also on the editorial staff of ''[[The Public Eye]]''<ref>"Public Eye Staff," The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.</ref> with Berlet as managing editor<ref>''The Public Eye'', Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).</ref> and which Berlet describes as a "spawn of the first ''Counterspy''."<ref>Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, ''Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression,'' (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91).</ref> ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the names of several [[CIA]] agents,<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948672,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Dirty Work], ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Oct. 02, 1978.</ref> including CIA Athens Station Chief [[Richard S. Welch]] who was murdered by the [[terrorist]] [[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]] in 1975<ref>''[[Washington Post]]'', [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29,+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch Obituary: Richard S. Welch], 29 December 1975, A16. ISBN 01908286 </ref> and gave the impetus for passage of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]].<ref>For The Record, ''Washington Post'', 27 July 1980. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051101.asp]</ref> Berlet was also a member of Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme [[leftism]] demands ideological purity from its followers. Berlet made an ultimatum to remove another Board member.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included, in Berlet's words, "LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. Berlet considered Prouty a [[fascist]]. Brandt retorted, "When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5315&pid=18679&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry18679</ref> Berlet further sought to undermine Brandt by convincing three others to quit, adding "He (Brandt) was mad"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> but admitting "On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Part 033 ''The JFK Conspiracy'' - November 22, 1993. Retrieved from the Nizkor Project, October 29, 2007.</ref>

The WikiMedia Foundation retains Berlet, despite his penchant for excess,<ref>Brandt notes, "Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist." [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/SQ]</ref> to deal with the ceaseless barrage of idiosyncratic musings from the followers of [[Lyndon LaRouche]].

=== Impugning critics ===

'''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''' requires,
{{Cquote|without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles.}}
Berlet complained about criticism in his Wikipedia biographical entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and the organization he is associated with, [[Political Research Associates]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=24242896</ref> One critic was blasted in the article mainspace with an unsourced, unspecified rebuttal by Berlet as "unethical;" when an editor asked if the charge by Berlet could be substantiated the editor was rebuked and accused of "harassing a controversial expert."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2#Laird_Wilcox</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Dispute_Resolution_Process</ref> Another reliable source in the article read,
{{Cquote|one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s 'crusade' against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.' <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory], By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com October 16, 2003.</ref>}}
Berlet stated, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and a Daniel Brandt entry on Wikipedia soon was created. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible. Brandt observed, "I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry21441</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6666&pid=23072&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry23072</ref><ref>SlimVirgin stated on stated 21:57, Dec 28, 2004, "Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_1 Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1], and at 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source"[http://www.talkaboutalternative.com/group/alt.conspiracy/messages/1164072.html]</ref>

'''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Self-published sources''' states,
[[Image:25may2006cberlet2.GIF|thumb|300px|right|Berlet inserts highly inflammatory, guilt by association material cited to himself; the slanders remained for at least 16 months.]]
{{Cquote|Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources</ref>}}
'''Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Reliable sources''' states,
{{Cquote|Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the '''No original research''' and '''Verifiability''' policies, and could lead to [[libel]] claims....Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links...Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory...<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources</ref>}}
Brandt is also a registered user at Wikipedia, hence '''No Personal Attacks''' and '''Civility''' clauses apply, in addition to '''What Wikipedia is Not''', a vehicle for propaganda, advertising or self-promotion, and '''Wikipedia is not a battleground'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground</ref>

'''Wikipedia:No Original Research''', which has undergone several revisions, at the time stated, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge...If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere...the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person...They must cite reliable, third-party publications... bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=50820065#The_role_of_expert_editors</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Citing_oneself</ref>
'''Wikipedia:Ownership of articles''' prohibits asserting ownership over articles, particularly where a [[conflict of interest]] may arise. Chip Berlet has been cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee on several occasions about over involvement in his Wikipedia biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Arbitration_report</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_regarding_autobiography</ref> When Berlet was unable to have criticism sourced to Brandt removed from his entry, Berlet dredged up a 16 year old highly inflammatory and vicious [[guilt by association]] smear against Brandt to elevate Berlet's own personal credibility and further undermine Brandt as a reputable critic of Chip Berlet. Berlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.



=== What is a reputable source? ===

[[Image:Americanextremist.JPG|thumb|300px|right|[http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,'']John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, Chapter 9, ''[[Guardian]]'', pgs. 125-131. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)]]
Several official Wikipedia policies were rewritten<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=31675236&oldid=31668491 Wikipedia:No original research], Revision as of 00:21, 17 December 2005; SlimVirgin removes the language, "Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."</ref>and modified at various times to exempt [[Chip Berlet]] from provisions and applications. Enforcement of basic civility clauses and no personal attacks regarding Berlet's conduct are routinely ignored. Berlet considers himself an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, but was unanimously rejected by several key and influential Wikipedia Administrators<ref>"I, '''Jayjg''', hereby award you this '''Barnstar''' for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of '''reliable sources''' at '''Holocaust Denial'''. 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goodoldpolonius2&diff=41765875&oldid=40600697], retrieved from WP/User:Goodoldpolonius2, October 14, 2007.</ref><ref>Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2005. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20507026&oldid=20505285]</ref> as a reputable source<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20321342&oldid=20321025 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/Deep problems with the article], Revision as of 07:17, 5 August 2005, Goodoldpolonius2; "the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century)....The racial anti-Semitism section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20321341#Racial_anti-Semitism not factually correct]."</ref> for the Wikipedia [[mainspace]] article, "Roots of Anti-Semitism" in 2005. As of October 2007, Wikipedia's '''Reliable sources/Extremist sources''' policy stated,
{{Cquote|Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as [[extremist]], whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extreme sources], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007.</ref>}}
High level Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin, in a remarkably transparent action removed herself as a defendant<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], SlimVirgin (→Rangerdude - moved Katefan's); SlimVirgin made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21732881 '''involved third party: Katefan0'''] a full party to take her place in the case after ArbCom voted to Accept. Katefan0 it was discovered later was Kathryn Wolfe of ''Congressional Quarterly'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=2f1782927c11d7a9e62cf6815238337d&showtopic=7603&view=findpost&p=25526][http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=thissite_masthead] accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Wolfe lost her Senate press credentials when an undisclosed [[conflict of interest]] came to light regarding her activities as an anonymous Wikipedia Administrator. Wolfe was promoted to a Wikipedia Administrator after her role in the frame up of the complaining party. Wolfe initiated Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures over an article about a former employer, the ''Houston Chronicle''. The facts were made known to ArbCom. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was a policy, and not a guideline. Several parties were known to enter Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures, signing an agreement to participate in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in a public forum accessible to Google search engines, without recourse, and both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and WikiMedia Foundation turned a blind eye to the situation.</ref> from Wikipedia's internal policy making and self-regulatory process governing user conduct known as Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee voted to accept a complaint filed against her<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude], Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".</ref> to review her conduct. SlimVirgin made the Complaining party the defendant, removed herself, and placed a third party, User:Katefan0 in her place. SlimVirgin then presented evidence in the same case which stated,
{{Cquote|'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).</ref>}}
The Complaining party stated,
{{Cquote|the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?], Revision as of 21:49, 4 August 2005, Rangerdude.</ref>}}
Nonetheless, reprisal actions were taken against the Complaining party who exposed the duplicity of Wikipedia internal regulatory processes and favoritism granted to an extreme [[leftist]] writer.

=== Jimbo Wales chooses sides in the dispute ===

The negative publicity engendered by the Seigenthaler and Brandt cases put Wikipedia into crisis management mode. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From [[WikiTruth]], the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source of criticism on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry, yet another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain Brandt's biography simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. As in the Seigenthaler controversy, Brandt once again demanded accountability, this time from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own background which would deny him inclusion as a source on anything other than himself.

Brandt is now known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

===First casualty: a Congressional correspondent gets canned===

The first casualty in the war between Brandt and the Wikipedia Admin community<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7785&st=0&p=26282&#entry26282</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615</ref> was a reporter for ''Congressional Quarterly'' and accredited to the [[U.S. Senate]] Press Gallery.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&pid=7935&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry7935</ref> User:Katefan0 was a member of the Association of Immoral Wikimedians<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=243978&oldid=243977</ref> founded by [[Jimbo Wales]].<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=232409&oldid=230690</ref> Brandt stated,
[[Image:Washington 05 183.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Katefan was accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery; ArbCom knew of some her conflicts of interest.]]
{{Cquote|One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the ''Congressional Quarterly'', even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in [[Washington DC]] that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious [[conflict of interest]] to the extent that it was not disclosed.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1422&view=findpost&p=7935</ref>}}

Katefan outed herself<ref>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/KinF/messages/1416?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1</ref> but Brandt conceded the circumstances surrounding her exit from Wikipedia damaged his reputation. Meantime the issue of accountability at the forefront of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]] was all but forgotten as privacy concerns of anonymous Administrators surmounted defamations of innocent real life people whose identity was known.

Katefan initiated '''Wikipedia:Dispute resolution''' with a knowledgeable conservative editor over various controversies on the ''Houston Chronicle'' article, including references to the ''Chronicle's'' coverage of [[Republican]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom Delay]]. Katefan had in fact worked for the ''Houston Chronicle'' during many of these controversies,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14272141</ref> was using Original Research and admitted to being friends with editors and reporters on the ''Chronicle'' staff.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Archive_1#Response</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14339760</ref> Katefan removed properly sourced examples of the ''Chronicle's'' Editorial Board and her former co-workers [[hate speech]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=next&oldid=14285136</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14285136</ref> which included references to prominent Republicans as a subhuman species. Katefan's [[conflict of interest]] was made known to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14282308</ref> For her assistance in silencing, and ultimately harassing a knowledgeable conservative editor out of the project with an Arbitration ruling of "tendentious editing,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#POV_editing_by_Rangerdude</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Rangerdude_placed_on_probation</ref> Katefan was promoted to Admin.

Not long after, another professional journalist politely protested Wikipedia's exceedingly biased entries about [[Paul Weyrich]]. Patently false information about Weyrich was cited to none other than Chip Berlet, with the customary alleged "links and ties" to "fascist" [[Dominionism]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dominionism/Archive_1#latest_removal</ref> Berlet's latest ideological crusade. The user admitted to being a member of the same Melkite [[Catholic]] parish as Mr. Weyrich,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Well_referenced_but_biased_sources Talk:Paul Weyrich#Well referenced but biased sources]</ref> and offered to volunteer his professional expertise to improve Wikipedia's Dominionism series and bring neutral balance. The editor was instructed point blank by high level Wikipedia Administrators, "people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich User talk:Pravknight#Paul Weyrich]</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/060162.html ; Berlet circumvented official WP:Dispute Resolution by posting "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this..." at Wikien-1 and asked someone else to nominate '''Category:Soviet spies''' for deletion while the issue was being Mediated. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was policy and participants signed a Mediation pledge to participate in Good Faith [http://encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Good_faith]. Berlet's conflict of interest can be seen in (1) personal association with ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York, (2) personal association with [[Harry Magdoff]], (3) personal connection with ''CounterSpy'' magazine. ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the true identities of living CIA officials, and lead to creation of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]]. Berlet it appears never had a problem with exposing the real life identities of living CIA agents but has fought strenuously to keep deceased identities of [[KGB]] agents out of Wikipedia. Two years after Berlet circumvented policy, '''Category:Soviet spies''' has not been deleted.</ref> and of course, profiled as a conservative, was banned for "tendentious editing."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight#Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?] The editor stated, "why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harassment."</ref>

By March 2007 Katefan's name was no longer on the Senate Press Gallery list.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&#entry25526</ref>

=== Second casualty: Wikipedia "experts" called into question, the Essjay Scandal ===

On April 29-30, 2005 a conference of [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" <ref>[http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-June/018692.html ''Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"'']</ref> was held a CUNY. Berlet spoke at the forum and Doug Ireland reported,
{{Cquote|Nobody at the national level is tracking these ''[[Christer]]''<ref>[http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html Religious Right Watch''] July 10, 2005.</ref> censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. 'People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at [[Political Research Associates]] would love to do it,' says Berlet, 'but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it ....' <ref>[http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/the_new_blackli.html ''The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers''], Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.</ref>}}
Wikipedia had the resources, Political Research Associates began tracking them, and the “strategies to defeat them” were carried into the battleground of Wikipedia. Berlet's massive, “Dominionism” series, a compendium of anti-Christian screeds best characterized by Stanley Kurtz of the ''[[National Review]]'', who also reported on the conference, claims the "real agenda" of the Religious Right is to,
{{Cquote|suppress other religions ...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-marital, extramarital, or homosexual sex and ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp ''Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory.''] Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.</ref>}}

Ten days later on May 10 Essjay posted on his user page,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#Your_.22apologies.22_sound_fake</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23005</ref>
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 

My Academic Degrees: 
* Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
* Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
* Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
* Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) 
</blockquote>

Essjay was nominated for Admin on July 13, 2005 and in accepting he wrote, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to [[Roman Catholicism]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=18741394&oldid=18741092</ref>
An anonymous IP commented, "I have read several of Essjay's articles on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=19090368&oldid=19089436</ref> His Adminship was completed one week later with near unanimous support.

After serving in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations such as Administrator General of Esperanza and official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels, Essjay was elected a Bureaucrat on March 31, 2006.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay</ref>

==== Hoaxes perpetrated against academics and mainstream media ====

On April 7, 2006 one week after moving into his new role as a Bureaucrat Essjay sent an email to a professor in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. The professor had told her students, "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source." The email is not of a personal nature and Essjay clearly represents himself as speaking for Wikipedia and posted a verbatim copy for others to use. The letter stated:
{{Cquote|I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology... I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." ... Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. ...

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. ...'''It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia'''; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before. (''bolden added'') <ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

Of the two hundred thousand registered users, and the nearly one thousand administrators with powers to block others from editing, Essjay was one of only 14 with Checkuser rights, a responsibility which has always been the cause of grave privacy concerns and only given to those who have earned the trust of the WikiMedia Foundation. Essjay was recommended to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff of ''The New Yorker'' by a member of Wikipedia’s management team<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote Know It All], Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, by Stacy Schiff ''The New Yorker'', July 31, 2006; Editor's Note appended.</ref> and would not identify himself other than confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>
In a piece entitled, ''Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?'', Schiff wrote,
[[Image:Schiffstacy 3l.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff was hoaxed by Essjay and Wikipedia's management team.[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote] ]]
{{Cquote|One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries. A tenured professor of religion at a private university...

Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee. Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed...

Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. }}

''The New Yorker'' unwittingly published the deceptive information on Essjay's credentials in its July 31, 2006 issue. The same month Brandt pointed out at Wikipedia Review,<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701</ref> a forum frequented by prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day.

In August 2006, a professional journalist who attended the same Catholic parish as [[Paul Weyrich]] of the [[Free Congress Foundation]] protested the patently false information about Weyrich. Weyrich was [[politically profiled]] as a right-wing "theocratic dominionist." Wikipedia's [[Dominionism]] entry, authored by Berlet, stated in its opening sentence, "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=83649766&oldid=83640075</ref> There was one big problem, Weyrich is Catholic. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Inaccurate_information Talk:Paul Weyrich#Inaccurate information]</ref> By now Essjay was becoming established as Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell User:Essjay/RFC/Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell], 2 March 2007.</ref>

====The Wikipedia Review forum====

On January 7, 2007, Essjay outed his own true life identity on his user page at Wikia.<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png</ref> A site administrator at Wikipedia Review posted on January 11 the Essjay user page at Wikia had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees and noted there was no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The same administrator posted further details <ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992</ref> of discrepancies between Essjay's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19, after Essjay added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

Essjay claimed on February 2 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel before he accepted the position.<ref>Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC), [http://web.archive.org/web/20071105191108/www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html User:Essjay/Archives/52]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_"his_positions_of_trust"_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962 Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees], Wikinews.</ref><ref>http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/05/one-last-brief-comment-on-the-essjay-scandal/</ref> It was apparent Essjay had lied.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref> Brandt sought to contact Stacy Schiff with the information, and expressed disillusionment over the next several weeks at not receiving a response.

Brandt sent several letters regarding his own biography to the Foundation Legal Department and never received a response. On February 3 Florence Devouard, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation announced Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html Executive director], Florence Devouard, Feb 3 21:47:48 UTC 2007.</ref>
[[Image:Mania-logo.gif|thumb|300px|right|The 2006 ''WikiMania'' Conference was held in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]], August 4-6.]]
Ken Myers, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and author of ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia''<ref>[http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2 ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia'']</ref> presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts<ref>http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM1</ref> is known in the community as Ksm10. Myers registered an account at Wikipedia Review on February 21, 2007<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1003</ref> and spent several hours which included a discussion with Brandt on Section 230 issues. Brandt had been arguing for months that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the WikiMedia Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia and that the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only internet service providers are immune from liability for libelous content under Section 230.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpost&p=19429</ref> Brandt's efforts to get Wikipedia to remove the libelous information about him attracted a lot of attention, and was even being studied in a Cyberlaw class at [[Harvard]].<ref>
Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability Day 3. A Potential Solution: Intermediary Liability] 2007 Winter Term.</ref>

Two days later one of the lesser known occurrences in the explosive maze of events of February 23 happened when Wikipedia Administrator Yanksox registered an account at Wikipedia Review.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014</ref> Curiously enough, Yanksox spent several hours perusing the site where the background material on Berlet and SlimVirgin's efforts to discredit Brandt is laid out but never posted anything in Wikipedia Review for still another two months. In a bizarre turn of events and without discussing with anyone, Yanksox suddenly executed what Brandt had been asking for 15 months: invoking '''Ignore All Rules''' ('''IAR''') policy, Yanksox deleted the Brandt biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=110357260</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence</ref> The page had been nominated for deletion numerous times, but always failed to win the necessary support in Wikipedia's mind-numbing bureaucratic processes. Yanksox stated his reasons as "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Yanksox&page=Daniel+Brandt</ref> then performed a "kamikaze dive" by deleting his own user page.

It was now common knowledge among critics at the Wikipedia Review forum and many of Wikipedia's so-called "inner cabal" that gross distortions and lies had been used to advance Essjay within the organization and perpetrated against a mainstream news source with a good reputation for fact checking. Many of the more mature Wiki Admins now saw the wisdom of ending the dispute with Brandt which was claiming more and more dupes with no understanding of the root of the dispute. In the midst of the firestorm over Yanksox out of process deletion that same day, Jimbo Wales announced Essjay's appointment to the Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html</ref>

Three days later, on February 26, Brandt received and posted a response from the Deputy Editor of ''The New Yorker'' stating a retraction would be published in the March 5 issue including the comment, "which comes out today."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23635</ref> Wikia’s public relations firm made Essjay’s response to ''The New Yorker''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111710102&oldid=111704869</ref>

====The scandal breaks====

When the scandal broke it was [[international]] in scope with ABC News,<ref name="ABC video">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=ABC News broadcast on Essjay|accessdate=2007-03-08}}</ref> Associated Press,<ref name="Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046
|work=[[ABC News]]
|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-26
}}</ref> BBC,<ref name="BBC">{{cite news
| title = Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
| work = [[BBC News]]
| date = March 6, 2007
| accessdate = 2007-03-16
}}</ref> USA Today,<ref name="BrianBergstein">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
|publisher=[[USA Today]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-25
}}</ref> London Daily Telegraph,<ref name=Jardine>{{cite news
|first=Cassandra
|last=Jardine
|title=Fount of all wisdom – and foolery
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/08/nosplit/ftwiki108.xml
|publisher=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''
|section= Features
|date=March 8, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=21
|quote =}}</ref> London Guardian,<ref name="Guardian">Finkelstein, Seth. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html "Read me first"], ''[[The Guardian|The London Guardian]]'', March 8, 2007.</ref> Le Monde,<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=979865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01 Wikipédia, à visage découvert], Olivier Dumons, LE MONDE.FR 08 Mars 2007.</ref> The Register,<ref name="Farewell, Wikipedia?">{{cite web
| url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
| title = Farewell, Wikipedia?
| accessdate = 2007-03-18
| last = Orlowski
| first = Andrew
| authorlink = Andrew Orlowski
| date = March 6, 2007
| work = Music and Media
| publisher = [[The Register]]
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}
</ref> Newsweek,<ref name=Keen>{{cite news
|first=Steven
|last=Levy
|title=Invasion of the web amateurs
|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/36171
|publisher=[[Newsweek]]
|section=The Technologist
|date=March 26, 2007
|accessdate=
|page=16
|quote =}}</ref> BusinessWeek,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070321_174505.htm?chan=search|title=Wikipedia's Not the Net Police|author=B.L.Ochman|publisher=''[[BusinessWeek]]''|date=2007-03-22|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref> CNSNews,<ref name=Bozell>{{cite news
|first=L. Brent
|last=Bozell III
|title=Not Your Father's Encyclopedia
|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/archive/2007/col20070321.asp
|publisher=CNSNews.com
|section=
|date=March 21, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=
|quote =}}</ref> Boston Globe<ref name=Beam>{{cite news
|first=Alex
|last=Beam
|title=Tricky truths behind Wikipedia
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/03/12/tricky_truths_behind_wikipedia/
|publisher=''[[Boston Globe]]''
|section=LivingGarts
|date=March 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=E5
|quote =}}</ref> and Sydney Morning Herald<ref name="LarrySanger2002">{{cite news
|first =
|last =
|authorlink =
|title = More than just a war of words
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-just-a-war-of-words/2007/04/21/1176697134712.html
|work =
|publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
|pages =
|date = April 21, 2007
|accessdate = 2007-04-23
}}</ref> all reporting on it. The reaction within the Wikipedia Community was largely a feeling of shock, anger, and betrayal. Many ''bona fide'' experts and academics quit in disgust.<ref>[http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html Sand Castles of Knowledge], Kyle Gann, May 5, 2007.</ref>

Jimbo Wales' handpicked Arbitrator of civility began name-calling and attacked "Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies;"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111701367&oldid=111700836</ref> however this excuse rings hollow since Essjay posted the bogus credentials long before the Katefan controversy, and shortly after the campaign against Brandt's credibility began months before Brandt was ever involved, or even aware of it. Essjay also blamed ''The New Yorker'' :
{{Cquote|I’m also sorry the ''New Yorker'' chose to print what they did…no respectable publication would print it.”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285</ref>}}''The New Yorker'' retraction quoted Jimbo saying, "I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref> Estranged co-founder [[Larry Sanger]], who is probably recognized as Wales most respected critic, confronted Wales,
{{Cquote|Look, either you hired him thinking he was a tenured professor, or you hired him knowing he was a fraud. There wasn't a third option. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#not_a_violoation_of_trust.3F.21 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20], March 2 - 5, 2007.</ref>}}

A longtime editor from the very earliest days of the Wikipedia project, named JHK, after hearing [[Andrew Schlafly]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307.ram<</ref> founder of Conservapedia speak told Jimbo Wales,
{{Cquote|he is right about there being a cadre of people who tend to get their way on editorial matters. Perhaps that's part of the social engineering experiment that is part of Wikipedia. But when a member of that cadre has clearly abused his position based in part on lies he told to get that position, and the cadre circles wagons ...?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20</ref>}}

''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' noted,
{{Cquote|Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.<ref>{{cite news |title= Essjay, the Ersatz Academic|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070305162127/http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 |publisher= ''The Chronicle of Higher Education''|date= March 2 2007|last=Read|first=Brock}}</ref>}}

Six weeks after Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced Brad Patrick resuming his role as General Counsel to focus on addressing "a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces," Patrick resigned.<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html Brad Patrick Resigns as General Counsel], Brad Patrick, Mar 22 19:01:14 UTC 2007</ref>

===What did Jimbo know and when did he know it? ===

On April 11, 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation published as part of its Privacy policy for Checkuser rights a requirement for disclosure of the identification of Administrator to the Foundation. At the time of Essjay's appointment to Checkuser, several prominant Wikipedians expressed concern over the trustworthiness of Checkusers. Here is how Essjay addressed the gravity of their concerns:
{{Cquote|We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of life and death. ''Life and death.''<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020054.html [Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?], Essjay Mon Apr 17 06:14:53 UTC 2006.</ref>}}
An editor asked, "I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and [another Admin] are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the Foundation board." The other Checkuser Admin responded,
{{Cquote|the fact that Essjay and I are well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006776.html Foundation-l new checkuser policy] Essjay, Fri Apr 21 19:22:21 UTC 2006</ref>}}

===Cracks in the dam===

Wikipedia reached a milestone in its history on October 12, 2007, when Wikipedia "controversial and knowledgeable expert" [[Chip Berlet]] received his first block for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet] Berlet, who had written for [[extremist]] publications<ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+"experts":+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451 Expertly using "experts": leftist media organs selectively use so-called experts to propagandize the masses on behalf of a statist agenda. (Expert Opinion)].</ref><ref>John George and Laird Wilcox, [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, (ISBN 0-87975-680-2), pgs. 125-131.</ref> throughout his career, had achieved a special "controversial expert" exemption from virtually all Wikipedia's written policies. This exemption from policy extended to citing self, no original research, no self promotion, incivility and personal attacks, and other policies.

In the wake of the Essjay scandal, and questions surrounding Berlet's conduct toward non-LaRouche editors, Wikipedia appears to be moving away from the "expert" designation, and now uses the term "knowledgeable editor."

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10360&view=findpost&p=36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense [[group-think]] Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

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

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.

[[Category:Wikis]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2009-09-23T05:06:02Z

Brown25:

''Obama redirects here. Did you mean [[Osama Bin Laden]]?''

{{President
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|seq=44
|term_start=January 20, 2009
|term_end=Present
|party=Democrat
|vp=Joe Biden
|previous=George W. Bush
|next=
|birth_date=August 4, 1961
|age={{age|1961|8|4}}
|birth_place=
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|spouse2=
|religion=Described in this entry
}}
'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' aka '''Barry Soetoro'''<ref>[http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0 Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders], By Mark S. McGrew, ''[[Pravda]].ru, 19.01.2009</ref> (allegedly<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82033]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref><ref>[http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu report]</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/farber/Obama_birth_certificate/2009/04/06/200320.html]</ref><ref>Obama's [[African]] grandmother Sarah Hussein Obama says Barack was born in her presence in Kenya.[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes, Israeli News, October 12, 2008][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth, WND, October 23, 2008][http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b58_1225645143 Audio Conversation Link]</ref> born in [[Honolulu]] Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]], and previously served as a first-term [[Democratic party|Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] (2005-2008). Obama and his running mate [[Senator Joseph Biden]] won the presidential election<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wins_presidency/2008/11/04/147788.html?utm_medium=RSS]</ref> after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million,<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638</ref> most of it raised from undisclosed donors.

As President Obama has pushed for establishing a Palestinian state over the objection of [[Israel]]'s Prime Minister,<ref>http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-is-not-and-will-never-be-at-war-with-islam....-many-americans-have.../444572/</ref> inclusion of [[Turkey]] in the [[European Union]]<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece</ref> and holding [[Guantanamo]] detainees indefinitely without trial.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some], Peter Finn, Washington Post, May 22, 2009. </ref>

Obama's budget and stimulus bill advanced his [[Socialism|socialist]] idea of "'''spreading the wealth'''."<ref>"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT], N.Y. Post </ref>
<ref>John McCain quipped during the campaign, "He's running for Redistributor In Chief, I'm running for Commander In Chief."[http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008. The slogan "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]] and could be the inspiration for the centrally planned economy Obama plans to introduce to the US when he is installed into office.</ref> His [[Socialized Medicine|health care plan]] would force employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system.<ref>The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to or can not afford to purchase it themselves.</ref> To announce his trip to [[Berlin]] in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of [[Lenin]] and [[Che Guevara]].<ref>[http://andrightlyso.com/2008/07/24/obama-lenin-gaffe/ Obama's direct copy of a Lenin poster for his Berlin visit]</ref><ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/31/the-la-times-looks-into-the-obama-che-iconcography-connection/ The LA Times looks into the Obama-Che iconcography connection] by Michelle Malkin </ref> During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with [[Frank Marshall Davis]], a high level [[Communist Party]] functionary<ref>http://www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-obama-a-marxist-mole/ "Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?", Accuracy in Media.</ref> while Obama has stated that his favorite professors in school were themselves Marxists.

Obama has stated, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the [[national security]] objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s Video])

Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama was nominated for president, criticized Obama as the "most committed" [[abortion]]-supporting candidate "since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973."<ref>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088</ref> Obama said "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> It "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make [[partial-birth abortion]] legal again."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008. Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it.</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] observed that Obama used techniques of [[mind control]] in his campaign, as in this speech: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"<ref name="mind control">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089 . The doctors observe that "Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists."</ref>

== Declining popularity==
[[File:Obama total approval august 7 2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|center]]
In the wake of the [[financial collapse of 2008]], Obama initially enjoyed the goodwill and moderate approval ratings of Americans. The growing perception of Obama's [[socialism|far left]] agenda marked a reversal of trends particularly after the "Gates flap."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004097.html</ref> [[Harvard]] Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested on [[misdemeanor]] disturbance charges. Prof. Gates told the arresting officer, "Do you know who I am?" Gates was a personal friend of Obama.<ref>http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/23/police-and-president-obama/comment-page-2/?action=late-new</ref> When asked about the incident at a press conference, Obama charged the arresting officer with "acting stupidly." Polls shortly after revealed Obama's personal popularity and approval ratings declined significantly across the board, on every major subject and among all demographic groups.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratings-slide</ref>

The growing perception of Obama's favoritism toward influential and powerful [[Liberal Elite|elite]]s was revealed in polls, with the greatest declines among poor people, the very group Obama worked hard to court in 2008. The respected Pew Research Center noted "Some of the larger declines are among members of his own party."

An ''[[ABC News]]/[[Washington Post]]'' poll in August 2009 showed public doubt about [[health care reform]] with a rise in views the president's proposals would do more harm than good. Obama's rating on the issue hit at a new low. Fewer than half support the president's agenda with many more "strongly" opposed than "strongly" in favor. Just 36 percent of independents, support the plan, considered the crucial political center.

Obama’s approval rating for handling health care has fallen steadily since April 2009 led by a steep a 17-point slide among independents. Expectations he can accomplish so-called "reform" have dropped further. Americans disapprove of his handling of the [[deficit]] by a record 12-point margin, 53-41 percent. After sharp gains following the 2008 elections, according to the polling report "views of the country’s direction have soured; 55 percent say it’s seriously off on the wrong track." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1093a3HealthCareReform.pdf</ref>

[[Fidel Castro]] was quoted by ''[[Reuters]]'' as saying, "President Barack Obama is trying to make positive changes." <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSB30869920090825</ref> Castro, who 50 years ago implemented in [[Cuba]] a program of change, universal health care and [[mass murder]],<ref>http://markhumphrys.com/cuba.html#History</ref>, recited the [[liberal]] [[mantra]] :
{{Cquote|I was amazed to read the wire services issued during the weekend about the US domestic policy, evidencing a systematic decline in President Barack Obama’s influence... the extreme right hates him for being an Afro-American and opposes anything the President does to improve that country....[and] will do its best to try to wear him out by hindering his program .... I wish I were wrong! <ref>[http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2009/ing/f240809i.html Reflections by ''I Wish I were Wrong''] Reflections by Comrade Fidel, Fidel Castro Ruz, August 24, 2009.</ref>}}

== Obamunism ==

:''Main article'' : [[Obamunism]]
[[File:Obamunism.jpg|thumb|left|220px]]
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama admistration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Under President Obama the American government's share of the national gross domestic product has significantly increased.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kABRyZdQXGw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breakingnews.com%2Fvideo%2Fdick-morris-obamas-waterloo&feature=player_embedded</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, although it certainly was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama adminstration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama admistration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama admistration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref>
[[Image:LarrySummers.jpg|thumb|right|200px|thumbnail|[[Larry Summers]] ]]
=== Larry Summers - Corrupt and Incompetent Chief Economic Advisor to Obama ===
[[Lawrence Summers]] is the Director of the [[White House]]'s [[National Economic Council]] (NEC) for President Barack Obama. The NEC was established to advise the U.S. President on U.S. and global economic policy.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nec/</ref> Larry Summers favored the bailouts of Wall Street firms and banks.<ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/02/obama-administr.html</ref>

A government watchdog group reports the following conflicts of interest of Larry Summers:
{{cquote|Larry Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, ...continues to accept large speaking fees from bailed out banks.

"Most of the companies paying Summers' speaking fees are found at top the list of contributors to politicians from both parties, leaving voters to wonder if there is anyone left who isn't in Wall Street's pocket."<ref>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2009/04/06/larry-summers-speaking-fees-targeted-by-watchdogs</ref>}}

The [[Washington Post]] reported:
{{cquote|Lawrence Summers, the chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the past year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees from several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations.<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/03/summers_raked_in_speaking_fees.html</ref>}}

Even the liberal publication [[The Nation]] declared concerning Obama's chief economic advisor Larry Summers:
{{cquote|In 1988, he was [[Michael Dukakis]]'s chief economic advisor, but when that campaign failed to bring Summers to power, he turned to America's great rival, the former [[Soviet Union]], to try out his economic experiments. In 1990, [[Lithuania]], a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country's economic transformation. Poor Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers's first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put his wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania's suicide rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania's economy, life became so unbearable under the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain were common. Things got so bad that in 1992, after just two years of Summers-nomics, the traumatized Lithuanians voted the [[communism|communist]] party back into power, the first East European nation to do so--even though just a year earlier Lithuanians actually died on the streets fighting [[communism]].

Fresh off his success in Lithuania, Summers moved to the [[World Bank]], where he was named the chief economist in 1991, the year he issued his famous let's-pollute-Africa memo. It was also the year that Summers, and his [[Harvard]] protégé Andrei Schleifer (who worked with Summers on the Lithuania economic transformation), began their catastrophic "rescue" of Russia's crisis-ridden economy. It's a complicated story involving corruption, cronyism and economic devastation. But by the end of the 1990s, [[Russia]]'s [[GDP]] had collapsed by more than 60 percent, its population was suffering the worst death-to-birth ratio of any industrialized nation in the twentieth century, and the financial markets that Summers and Schleifer helped create had collapsed in what was then the world's biggest debt default ever. The result was the rise of [[Vladimir Putin]] and a national aversion to [[free market]]s and anything associated with Western liberalism.<ref>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/ames</ref>}}

=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===
George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that Summers is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref>

== Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods ==
:''Main article'': [[Obamacare]]
Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill [[Socialized medicine|Obama's socialistic health care plan]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsImVGsFlmA</ref> Recently, President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group [[AARP]] endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zxf5ELaC4Q&feature=channel_page</ref> In addition, Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was recently caught spreading misleading information.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4HgDfNsH3M&feature=channel_page</ref> Skepticism is mounting concerning Obama's health care plan and Obama himself and the skepticism is growing for valid reasons.<ref>http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/762324.html</ref> For example, the usually pro-Obama news organization the [[Associated Press]] recently published an article which was critical of Obama that was entitled ''FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift''?<ref>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gayIiVSnEX8h2nbrvI2X4a9eo4qQD99K0NP00</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) maintains there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan and offers a number of criticisms.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> The AAPS maintains that Obama's plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care to the United States public plus reduce the quality of care that the system provides.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> Political analyst and commentator [[Dick Morris]] has asserted that Obama's health care plan will lead to the significant rationing of senior health care which will decrease the life span of senior citizens.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsImVGsFlmA</ref>
=== Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism ===
[[File:arrogant_obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|Barack Obama ]]
In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> However, recently when a newspaper reporter pressed Obama on whether he would commit to Americans having the same health care as congressmen, Obama repeatedly refused to commit to his previous promise of Americans having the same coverage as members of Congress.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama merely claimed Americans would have health care coverage that would "largely match up" with what members of Congress have.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama also stated he is constantly followed around by a personal physician.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref>

== Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism ==
Obama has consistently shown himself to be a [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitist]] who looks down on "ordinary" Americans. Asked to explain why small town [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." When Obama made this remark he was alluding to small town people who had experienced long periods of joblessness. In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama did not recount his statement but instead replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> Although many rural counties went for McCain, Obama carried the state with 54.6% of the vote, compared to 44.3% for John McCain.<ref>[http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=1]</ref>

In an attempt to counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim is at best an exaggeration, as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.
===Obama's Charitable Giving===

''For more information please see'': [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

[[File:Poor-woman.jpg|right|thumb|300px|In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave less than 2% of his earnings to charity even though he made about $250,000 per year (In the years 2000 to 2002, Barack Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity).<ref>http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/</ref><ref>http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/obamas-charitable-contributions.html</ref> For more information please see: [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] ]]
In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave less than 2% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year. Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to about 6%.<ref>http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/</ref>

Below is Obama's charitable giving expressed as percentage of his income for the years of 2000 to 2006 when he was earning about $250,000 per year:

*2000: 0.9%
*2001: 0.5%
*2002: 0.4%
*2003: 1.4%
*2004: 1.2%
*2005: 4.7%
*2006: 6.1%<ref>http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/obamas-charitable-contributions.html</ref>

Obama's charitable giving pattern is not surprising given what we know about United States [[liberal]] politicians and charitable giving and also the charitable giving in the general population of liberals in the United States.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref><ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>

===Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===

''For more information please see'': [[Liberal politicians and uncharitablenes]]

The political magazine the ''[[American Spectator]]'' declared:
{{cquote|The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. [[Al Gore]] has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity...

Senator [[John Kerry]] likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy. Later, of course, Kerry married the rich widow Theresa Heinz, and today is active in charitable causes using the Heinz foundation as his vehicle...

[Senator Ted] [[Ted Kennedy|Kennedy]]’s tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>}}

===Liberals and uncharitableness ===

''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] cited a study by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], which indicated that American liberal households earn more than conservative American households but give less to charity.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition American conservatives donate more time and given more blood than American liberals.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>

=== Barack Obama's Brother George Obama and Poverty ===
[[File:Barack Obamas Brother in Bengo-002.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[George Obama]]]]
In August of 2008 the NY Daily News reported the following concerning Obama and his half-brother George Obama:
{{cquote|Barack Obama wants to live in the White House - but his youngest half-brother lives in the poorhouse.

George Obama, one of the candidate's seven living half-siblings, lives on pennies a month in a hut in Africa, the Italian edition of Vanity Fair revealed.

"No one knows who I am," George Obama, 26, told the magazine. "I live like a recluse, no one knows I exist."

He lives on the outskirts of Nairobi in a 65-square-foot shack decorated with posters of the Italian soccer clubs AC Milan and Inter, and a calendar of beaches.

I live here on less than a dollar a month," he said....<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/20/2008-08-20_barack_obamas_povertystricken_halfbrothe.html</ref>

A spokesman for Barack Obama declined repeated requests for comment yesterday.

George Obama said he met his famous brother as a 5-year-old, and again in 2006 when Obama toured East Africa and visited Nairobi.

"It was very brief - we spoke for just a few minutes," he said.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/20/2008-08-20_barack_obamas_povertystricken_halfbrothe.html</ref>}}

In September of 2008, [[National Review]] featured an article by [[Dinesh D'Souza]] which declared:
{{cquote|George Obama’s shack measures six feet by ten feet, and yet he says that Barack Obama has done nothing to reach out to him or to help him. “I live like a recluse. If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed.”<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTk1OTc2ZGVlNjg2NmU1YTlkMGJjZjk5OGEzMzIxYjA=</ref>}}

A critic of Barack Obama's uncharitableness towards his brother wrote:
{{cquote|Well, they say charity begins at home, but it hasn't apparently in this case. Hearing about what George is going through, you can't help but wonder why his brother Barack won't send the guy $20? I mean it would double his annual income.<ref>http://www.zimbio.com/George+Hussein+Onyango+Obama/articles/3/George+Obama+Barack+Obama+Brother+Fights+Life</ref>}}

Asked by Harry Smith from CBS about Obama leaving the campaign to visit his ailing grandmother, Obama replied, "Yeah, well, the -- I think most people understand that if you're not caring for your family, then you're probably not the kind of person who's going to be caring for other people." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/10/23/cbs-s-smith-compares-obama-lincoln-obama-attacks-hannity CBS’s Smith Compares Obama to Lincoln; Obama Attacks Hannity] NewsBusters.org, October 23, 2008</ref>
[[File:KenyaSlumR 468x301.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|[[George Obama]]'s neighborhood]]

=== Barack Obama's Treatment of George Obama and Barack Obama's Inaugural Speech ===

Barack Obama's treatment of George Obama is particularly ironic and hypocritical given Barack Obama's inaugural speech.

Barack Obama declared in his inaugural speech:
{{cquote|To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it."<ref>http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/guidesweek/obama-inauguration-speech-world-poverty</ref>}}
[[Image:CharlesDarwin.jpg|thumb|125px|right|[[Charles Darwin]] ]]

=== Barack Obama's Uncharitableness/Liberal Elitism and Social Darwinism ===

''See also'': [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama.<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obama_oprah_and_the_guru_malig_1.html</ref> However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...".<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999910/posts</ref> Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].

==Michelle Obama and Liberal Elitism==

''For more information please see:'' [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]]

=== Michelle Obama and Patient Dumping Allegations ===

[[Michelle Malkin]] and others allege that [[Michelle Obama]] created a [[Patient dumping|patient dumping]] scheme for a Chicago health care facility.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80YK2o3kq0E</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html</ref><ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/23/video-did-michelle-obama-start-a-patient-dumping-program/</ref> In March of 2009, the ''[[American Thinker]]'' wrote:
{{cquote|Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP's president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statement suggesting that the initiative comes "dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html</ref>}}

=== Michelle Obama and Food Bank Incident ===
[[Image:Obama_Michelle.jpg|right|thumb|[[Michelle Obama]] is reported to have worn $540 shoes to a food bank.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/michelle-obama-wears-silv_n_193138.html</ref><ref>http://christwire.org/2009/05/michelle-obama-makes-fun-of-homeless-by-wearing-540-shoes-to-a-food-bank/</ref>]]
In May of 2008, the following was reported:
{{cquote|[[Michelle Obama]] continued to flaunt her money recently, as she made fun of homeless people by wearing $540 shoes to a food bank.

What a sick day and age we live in when millionaires endlessly gallivant around the globe in their jets and fancy clothes, but still make sure to remind the poor of just how little they have in pocket.

This is just more proof of how the liberal elite live these extravagant lives and are not in touch with us common people. We do all the hard work of fighting wars and building up this country, while they enjoy the fruits of our labor and control all the wealth.

My stomach churns with disgust because of these types of liberal antics and disregard for human life. For just about $5 a day, you can feed a starving child in Africa. With $540, Michelle Obama could by a struggling American family a month’s worth of groceries.<ref>http://christwire.org/2009/05/michelle-obama-makes-fun-of-homeless-by-wearing-540-shoes-to-a-food-bank/</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/michelle-obama-wears-silv_n_193138.html</ref>}}

[[Powerline]] offers the following criticism of Michelle Obama:
{{cquote|She says that she and Barack were born to parents of modest means, not with "silver spoons" in their mouths. Nobody knows the trouble they've seen. The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at [[Princeton]] and her law school education at [[Harvard]] has scarred her. It remains a motif of her stump speech. No one is accorded a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any of the financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/05/020456.php</ref>}}

== Radical Activism ==
[[File:ACORN VOTER FRAUD.JPG|thumb|241px|right|'''Red State-Grey State'''. The red states depicted are states where allegations, arrests, or convictions have occured between 1998 and 2008 in conjunction with [[ACORN]]'s recurrent voter fraud activities.[http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html] ]]
Following law school, Obama linked up with the local communist networks in Chicago<ref>[http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-file-78-smoking-gun-proof-that.html The Jarrett Connection. Proof That Obama’s Hawaii and Chicago Communist Networks Were Linked] Trevor Louden, June 01, 2009.</ref> and continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. Obama states he had been drawn to Chicago by the election of Harold Washington as the city’s first black mayor. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/us/politics/07community.html</ref> John Bachtell, Illinois CPUSA district organizer, at a special meeting on African American Equality, Building the Communist Party and the Young Communist League on September 30, 2007 said, "The historic election of Washington was the culmination of many years of struggle. It reflected a high degree of unity of the African American community and the alliance with a section of labor, the Latino community and progressive minded whites. This legacy of political independence also endures."<ref>http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/858/1/39/</ref>

In 1994 Obama represented ACORN in the ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' suit against redlining. ACORN was the driving force<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html</ref> behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the [[Clinton Administration]] that greatly expanded the [[Community Redevelopment Act]] (CRA). Obama represented ACORN before Clinton administration regulators in this effort. With the new regulations, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, and the threat of lawsuits under fair housing laws, to induce lenders to expand subprime lending, or so-called "toxic assets." A 2007 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis notes 50% of all subprime mortgages were in predominently minority census tracks.<ref>http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf</ref>
<ref>http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200829/200829pap.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown.pdf</ref>

In 1995, along with other prominent black leaders such as [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Louis Farrakhan]], Obama helped lead the [[Million Man March]] on Washington.[http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/wright-obama-helped-organize-march-with.html][http://www1.chicagoreader.com/obama_reader/what_makes_obama_run/?q=012009K]

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002. In his famous speech delivered in Chicago on October 2, 2002<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> Even though Saddam had, in Obama's words, "developed [[weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological weapons]]" Obama condoned the most hideous [[torture]]<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jackstraw1.html Saddam Hussein's Regime Methods of Torture]</ref> and dismissed Bush administration efforts at democratization and human rights as a "dumb war." A commentator observed, "one would search long and hard for any words from this apostle of hope and change about the palpable benefits that [[democracy]] might bring to the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East.<ref>[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/obama-s-war-11263 Obama's War], Peter Wehner, ''Commentary'', April 2008.</ref>

==Presidential Election (2008)==
:''See Main article'' : [[Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign]]
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|'''Obama stands with folded hands''' while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]
Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, with over 52% of the popular vote. He carried every state that [[John Kerry]] won in 2004, in addition to Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana. Of the 127 million votes cast, Obama beat John McCain by 8 million total votes.<ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/</ref> [http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg See county breakdown map] <ref>[www.cnn.com/election]</ref>

In the weeks leading up to the election, [[MSNBC]] reported the [[FBI]] was looking into ACORN voter fraud in several states.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27220798/</ref> Obama's staff worked to delay investigations into Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297446]

==Presidency (2009-Present)==

The Obama adminsitration was wracked by [[scandal]]s from its earliest days. See: [[Obama Administration]].

===Obama is likely the first Muslim President===
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|left|thumb|'''Then-Senator Obama wearing traditional African garb''', a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya<ref>[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]</ref>]]
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:

*Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by '''Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because '''I am one of them'''."<ref>http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm </ref>
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]],<ref>A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.</ref><ref>al-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.</ref> which most Christians would not retain.<ref>Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when the Italian journalist Magdi Allam recently converted to Christianity, he took a new name: "Cristiano".[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814] When Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref>
*Obama mentioned his religion as "[[my Muslim faith]]."<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw]</ref>
*He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."<ref> [http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971 Barack Obama's Christian Journey | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008]</ref>
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309</ref>
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]</ref>
*Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.<ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78323]</ref>
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref>
*In the book ''Obama,"Renegade"'' his friends say that "he actually really wasn't much of a churchgoer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/06/16/wolffe-president-missed-rev-wright-s-racist-rants-because-he-wasn-t-much- Wolffe: President Missed Rev. Wright’s Racist Rants Because 'He Wasn’t Much of a Churchgoer'] NewsBusters.org, June 16, 2009</ref>
*On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by [[Fareed Zakaria]],<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref>
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref>
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref>
*Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black [[Muslim]] leader [[Louis Farrakhan]] from the [[Nation of Islam]]. <ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 Louis Farrakhan Biography] Biography.com</ref>
*Obama refuses to refer to the United States as "''our country''", "What I think we know separate and apart from this incident -- is that there is a long history '''in this country''' of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."[8]
*Obama has chosen the [[Secret Service]] code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the [[Spanish]] ''renegado'', meaning "Christian turned Muslim."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3452281/Renegade-and-Renaissance-Obama-to-replace-Trailblazer-and-Tempo-Bush-in-the-White-House.html</ref>
*Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;<ref>http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2873/</ref> "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/11/is_obama_the_muslim_worlds_sup.html</ref>
*"President-elect [[Barack Obama]] has yet to attend [Sunday] church services since winning the [[White House]] earlier ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-religion26-2008dec26,0,1910913.story</ref>
*Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.<ref>http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Obama_to_take_oath_using_middle_name_/articleshow/3813120.cms</ref><ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/politics/main4660590.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4660590</ref>
*Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.
[[Image:Obamabow.jpg|thumb|right|250px|'''President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia''' - April 2009]]
*'''At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.'''<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38&feature=player_embedded Video of Obama bowing almost to King's waist]</ref> Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect."<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/</ref> Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html</ref> However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY</ref> Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU</ref> (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.<ref>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too</ref> However, there is a vast, inexorable difference between bending down to receive a medal as Bush did and bowing in deference to a foreign leader as Obama did.)
*Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram "IHS", which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/16/georgetown-university-hid-religious-symbols-white-house-request/ Georgetown hides Jesus' name at request of Obama's White House]</ref>

Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991, nor of Barack Obama's joining of a Mosque (The Islamic house of worship) at any time in his life. Finally, Obama abruptly left his radical Christian church in Chicago in 2008, when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join. On April 7, 2009, Obama visited a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c2e3700ab4e271bc32827b0fccfe560b.421&show_article=1</ref>

===Enemies list===
In July 2009 suspicisions arose over reports the Obama administration was creating a network<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27655039/</ref> of domestic informants and began compiling an enemies list. In a letter to President Obama, U.S. Sen. [[John Cornyn]], R-Texas, expressed serious concern about the White House's new program requesting Americans to forward email chains and other communications opposing the President's [[health care reform]] policies. Sen. Cornyn asked for assurances that the program was being carried out in a manner consistent with the [[First Amendment]] and America's tradition of [[free speech]] and public discourse.
[[File:Maria-and-Che.jpg|thumb|left|275px|A community organizer poses in front of [[mass murder]]er [[Che Guevara]] poster during the 2008 campaign; [http://patterico.com/2009/08/14/roxana-mayer-invited-to-town-hall-by-obama-organizer-who-sported-che-guevara-poster-at-obama-campaign-office/] the same community organizer [http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r9wf] falsely represented herself as a physician during a Townhall meeting on [[healthcare reform]] in 2009.
[http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/roxana_mayer_im_not_a_doctor_but_i_play_one_at_town/] ]]
Sen. Cornyn's letter also inquired about the collection of names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens that informants report, and raises the specter of a data collection program.
{{Cquote|I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests. You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of [[free speech]] rights.<ref>http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ForPress.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=ebc2c77d-802a-23ad-4ae4-6ccf4c7a255c</ref>}}
Congressman Darrell Issa also expressed grave concern about the administration blurring the lines between political and official business by collecting data on administration critics.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8352544</ref>

=== Health care disinformation ===
A webpage at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" claims that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq</ref> The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml</ref> A July 15 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52306</ref>}}

==Early life ==

Barack Hussein Obama II claims to have been born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham in 1961, but there is evidence<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/14/the-jihadist-vote/</ref> that he may have actually been born in Kenya. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny revealed that the [[secular]] public school he attended was not a [[madrassa]], which teaches Islam. On days off in observance of Islamic holidays he spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008</ref> Stanley Ann Dunham and the young Obama left Indonesia about 1970 for Hawaii where he attended the Punahou School, a leading private preparatory school where he graduated in 1979.
[[File:FrankMarshallDavis2.jpg|right|202px|thumb|'''Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party Card No. 47544.'''<ref>[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Frank_Marshall_Davis_5.pdf FBI file Frank Marshall Davis], v.5 p. 58 pdf.</ref> The [[U.S. Congress]] found the Communist Party an "instrumentality of a [[conspiracy]]...the agency of a hostile foreign power."<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000841----000-.html Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950], 50 U.S. Code Chapter 23 Subchapter IV Sec. 841</ref> The [[FBI]] placed Davis in its security index, meaning he could be arrested and detained in the event of a national emergency.<ref>[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Frank_Marshall_Davis_3.pdf FBI File 100-15799 Frank Marshall Davis], v. 3 p. 26.</ref> Davis was an early influence on Obama.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=HRCHJp-V0QUC&pg=PA220&dq=Frank%2Brecognizing+their+struggle+as+my+own#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance''], By Barack Obama, Random House, 2007, pp. 89-91, 96-98, .</ref>]]
''[[Political Affairs]]'' magazine describes itself as "affiliated with the [[Communist Party USA]],"<ref>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/static/17/1/3/</ref> (CPUSA) published a speech by Prof. Gerald Horne upon receipt of the CPUSA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University on March 28 2007. Prof. Horne stated,
{{Cquote|an African-American poet and journalist by the name of [[Frank Marshall Davis]]...befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu...a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from [[Kenya]] ...who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his bestselling memoir ''Dreams of my Father'', the author speaks warmly of an older black poet...as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American... At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir...when that day comes...a future student will ...examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties..."<ref>[http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/ Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party],By Gerald Horne, ''Political Affairs magazine, March 28 2007.</ref>}}

evoking the language in [[Chairman Mao]]'s ''Little Red Book'',
{{Cquote|unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors... Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed.<ref>''Statement Supporting the People of the Congo (L.) Against U.S. Aggression'' (November 28, 1964), ''People of the World, Unite and Defeat the U.S. Aggressors and All Their Lackeys'', 2nd ed., p. 14. Cited in Quotations from Mao Tse Tung from: 1927 - 1964, Mao Tse Tung, [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch07.htm Chapter 7 Dare to Struggle and Dare to Win], Peking Foreign Languages Press, 1966. Online Version: Mao Tse Tung Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.</ref>}}

In the 1995 book, ''Dreams from my Father'', the author wrote Obama learned to respect Davis's struggles, "recognizing them as my own." Obama sought Davis's advise as he left for college.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=HRCHJp-V0QUC&pg=PA97&dq=manipulate+words+so+they+don%27t+mean+anything+anymore#v=onepage&q=manipulate%20words%20so%20they%20don't%20mean%20anything%20anymore&f=false ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance''], By Barack Obama, Random House, 2007, pp. 97, 220.</ref> Initially Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors as a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in [[political science]]. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref>

===Birth Certificate Controversy===
:''Main article'' : [[Barack Obama birthplace controversy]]
[[Image:Obamapullup2.JPG|325px|thumb|left|'''Candidate Obama cultivated an image''' of sportsmanship and competition; as President, Obama ridiculed disabled people who compete in the [[Special Olympics]]. The comments "set us back decades," according to the program's director. <ref>[http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/mar/20/local/chi-090320obama-special-olympics-react Special Olympics chief responds to Obama gaffe], Stacy St Clair, ''Chicago Tribune'', March 20, 2009]</ref>([http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/03/20/Obamas-comment-sets-us-back/1237552251.html Video])
]]
During the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barack Obama's Hawaii Birth certificate, claiming that it is false and that he is ineligible for Presidency. <ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref>

On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>

A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The "dual loyalties" which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for President, not an invalid choice.

Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. <ref>http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605</ref> The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.

The state of Hawaii announced that the "Certification of Live Birth" document is legitimate and official. Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body, they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref> Critics rightfully point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state, and his "Certification of Live Birth" has likewise been dismissed as a forgery. <ref>http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html</ref>

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii. <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92810 Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge] WND, March 24, 2009</ref>

[[Bob Schultz]] with the [[We The People Foundation]] said:

"In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He... has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution."

[[Nancy Salvato]] with [[BasicsProject|BasicsProject.org]] perhaps put it best:

"What perturbs the rest of us is that President Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate. He has a team of lawyers who are opposing the examination of his sealed records in Hawaii. What he produced was a certificate of live birth... not a birth certificate. The rest of us are appalled at the lack of media examination surrounding the fact that there is no law requiring that a candidate for the highest office in our land produce an authentic birth certificate which proves natural citizenship."

=== Education ===

After working as a "community organizer" in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996. He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004. Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html</ref><ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
[[Image:Bernardine Dohrn.jpg|right|thumb|250px|'''Bernardine Dohrn formerly of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted''' enjoyed somewhat of a celebrity status among [[radical leftist]]s when she, along with her husband Bill Ayers, hosted a fundraiser for the relatively unknown Barack Obama in 1995; Dohrn issued the Weather Underground terrorist organization's Declaration of War Against the United States ([http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Declaration_of_a_State_of_War Full Text]) in 1970.]]
According to the White House website, White House Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] responded to this to this question on April 14 2009,
<blockquote>
Q Why is the President blocking habeas corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been there -- 

MR. GIBBS: You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/ Office of the Press Secretary], April 14, 2009, whitehouse.gov </ref></blockquote>

===Legal career===
Michelle Robinson began employment at the Chicago Law firm of Sidley-Austin in 1988 where disbarred attorney and [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorist]] [[Bernardine Dohrn]] aalso worked.<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjY4YzdhMDBkZGQ3ZmU2MTUzYjdkMzc5ZjUzYmViZWM=</ref><ref>http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDIxMDJiNzU5M2Q1MTY3ZGI1YTdmOWY5MzkwN2QxYzg=</ref> Barack Obama was hired a year later and appears to have misrepresented where he and future First Lady - Michelle Robinson Obama - first met.

In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

=== Religious affiliations ===
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|left|'''Obama and Jeremiah Wright.''' Despite Wright's rabid and sarcastic anti-American sermons, the Obama's regularly took their two small children to hear him speak. One Obama supporter remarked, "I cannot fathom allowing my children to hear filth from the pulpit."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html?show_comment_id=12042024#comment_12042024</ref> ]]
Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title was inspired by one of Wright's sermons.
After 20 years of being an active member, in April 2008 candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref> Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the [[Koran]] while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside." <ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>}}

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>}}

===Political positions of Barack Obama===
:''For the full article see [[Political positions of Barack Obama]]''
Obama's positions have been described as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753197/posts</ref> On numerous occasions Obama community organizers have been found flaunting banners of [[Marxist]]
[[guerrilla]] and [[murder]]er [[Che Guevara]].<ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/obama_workers_c.html Obama Workers' Che Guevara Poster Was No Fluke] from Moonbattery</ref> Former presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]] calls Obama a "radical communist." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/keyes_obama_destroy_US/2009/02/23/184503.html Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.] NewsMax, February 23, 2009</ref>

==Illinois State Senate (1995-2005)==
[[File:Youngobama2.jpg|320px|thumb|left|'''Dr. Quentin Young (left) is personal physician to Barack Obama (right) and [[Bernardine Dohrn]] (not shown)'''. Dr. Young was reimbursed by the [[KGB]] after he paid rent in advance on a storefront he used to treat injured rioters during the disruptions of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.<ref>[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Transcript_May_22_edited_version.pdf ''The Stealth Candidate''], Transcript, Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein, May 22 2008, p. 16.</ref><ref>House Committee on Un-American Activities, ''Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention'', and ''Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States'' Senate. Ninety-
Fourth Congress. First Session. Volume 6. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1976, Exhibit 68-13., cited in ''Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection'', Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein, usasurvival.org</ref> The ringleaders, principally [[Weather Underground]] terrorists, recieved urban guerilla warfare training in Cuba from the [[DGI]] prior to the attacks.<ref>[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Cuban_DGI.pdf Final Talk to the Fourth Contingent, Julian Rizo DGI.]</ref> ]]
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. According to Dr. [[Quentin Young]], "I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that [[Alice Palmer]] was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress." Dr. Young, a longtime friend of the Ayers' and Obama's, put up the money in 1968 to pay for the office that organized a riot in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. [[Carl Davidson]] of [[Progressives for Obama]] was told by [[Fidel Castro]] in March 1968 that Castro believed the United States was ready for [[revolution]]. Several [[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS) and WUO cadre trained in Cuba prior to the insurgency. The FBI summarized the situation:
{{Cquote|Rarely has any city been threatened all at one time with an invasion of 100 to 200 thousand dissidents - plots to [[assassin]]ate [[government]]al dignitaries and prominent individuals; intentions to instigate major riots in varied ways; widespread [[sabotage]] of communication, transportation and electrical systems- proposals to pour [[hallucinogen]]ic [[drugs]] into the water supply; clandestine shipments of [[arms]] and [[ammunition]] into the city for use in sniper activities - and myriad forms of [[guerrilla warfare]].<ref>Declassified U.S. Government intelligence information regarding the communist and foreign connections of the Weather Underground. Presented as evidence, on the agreement of the prosecution and defense counsel, in the trial of W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller, p.10.[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Declassified_docs.pdf ]</ref>}}
One veteran of the guerrilla warfare training in Cuba was Obama's host, [[Bernardine Dohrn]]. Young met with Dohrn after her return,
{{Cquote|Bernardine went down there already influenced by Cuba and in a state of romantic anticipation. She was at the top of her thermometer going down. I talked to her, sort of debriefed her, when she came back."<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref>}}

Dr. Young related Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer was choosing then Chicago city councilman Barack Obama as her successor.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html Obama once visited '60s radicals.], Ben Smith, Politico, February 22, 2008.</ref> Palmer once served on the executive board of the [[U.S. Peace Council]], a [[KGB]] front organization<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=_PZy-U7G2EMC&pg=PA111&dq=U.S.+Peace+Council%2Bkgb&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=%22U.S.%20Peace%20Council%22&f=false The Apocalyptic premise : Nuclear Arms Debated], By Ernest W. Lefever, E. Stephen Hunt, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C., 1982, pp. 127-137.</ref> that actively opposed President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s defense program. Palmer wrote a report on her visit to [[Moscow]] for the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) published by the CPUSA's ''[[People's Daily World]]''. In the twilight of the Soviet regime Palmer wrote, "Like the Reagan administration, the Soviets talk of increasing productivity among workers and curbing waste...but the Soviets' do not link these issues with ruining the living standards of human beings."

[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|200px|thumb|right|'''Obama served on the Board of the Woods Fund of Chicago with [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorist|terrorist group]] co-founder Bill Ayers'''<ref>[http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf FBI fil Weather Underground]</ref> '''at the time this photo appeared''' of Ayers stomping the American flag in ''Chicago Magazine'' in 2001. Obama was hired by Ayers to chair an organization Ayers founded called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayers contributed to Obama election campaigns and hosted a fundraiser for Obama to meet and greet Ayers contacts.]]

Ayers and Dohrn took credit, and have never denied responsibility for a series of [[terrorist]] bombings which included the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]]. The reopening of a [[cold case]] [[homicide]] investigation of a [[San Francisco]] police officer was urged by the San Francisco Police Officer's Association in March 2009.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/12/BATK16DHA4.DTL&hw=ayers&sn=001&sc=1000 S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing], Demian Bulwa, ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' March 12, 2009.</ref> An FBI informant who infiltrated the [[WUO]]<ref>''Bringing down America : an FBI informer with the Weathermen'', by Larry Grathwohl, Frank Reagan, 1976. [http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/810451/used/Bringing%20down%20America%20:%20an%20FBI%20informer%20with%20the%20Weathermen]</ref> and was close to Ayers reported an exchange he had with Ayers about a prospective bombing:
{{QuoteBox|INFORMANT: We'll blow out the Red Barn restaurant. Maybe even kill a few innocent customers — and most of them are black. 

AYERS: We can't protect all the innocent people in the world. Some will get killed. Some of us will get killed. We have to accept that fact.}}
Ayers and Dohrn were not prosecuted because of tainted evidence gathered by the [[FBI]]. Assistant Director of the FBI [[Mark Felt]], also known as “Deep Throat” in the [[Watergate Affair]],<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB156/ Nixon and the FBI: The White House Tapes], National Security Archive, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.</ref> was prosecuted and convicted for civil rights violations of Jennifer Dohrn, Bernardine’s sister, while tracking the terrorist pair. Ayers boasted in his book that he was "guilty as hell, free as a bird," and Felt was pardoned by President [[Ronald Reagan]] who noted Felt followed procedures he believed "essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the [[Attorney General]], and the [[President of the United States]] advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country.<ref>[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/41581d.htm Statement on Granting Pardons to W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller], April 15, 1981.</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/01/us/two-top-fbi-officials-cleared.html Two Top F.B.I. Officials Cleared], [[New York Times]], December 1, 1983.</ref>

Ayers, Dohrn and Barack Obama's relationship went back several years and they were lending their notoriety among [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career as Palmer's successor. Ayers' and Dorhn's first book written with [[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee|Jeff Jones]], the title ''Prairie Fire'' is taken from the sayings of [[Chairman Mao]]'s ''Little Red Book'', [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/] "a single spark can set a prairie fire"," announces, {{cquote|we are communist men and women.<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> }}
Co-author and co-Weather Underground founder Jeff Jones<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> worked for several years with Obama administration Green Czar [[Van Jones]], another self-described communist arrested in the aftermath of a deadly riot. Like [[Frank Marshall Davis]], there is no indication Ayers, Dohrn, Jeff Jones, Dr. Young, or other close associates of Obama have renounced their faith in what [[Allen Weinstein]] describes as "a murderous and discredited ideology."

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and served there for the next eight years.

President Obama is the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref><ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/</ref> Author and blogger Jack Cashill requisitioned a comparison of the writing style of [[Bill Ayers]]' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Obama's former boss Ayers may have ghostwritten Dreams.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Cashill states that a computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book; also he wrote "None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams". "In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he processed. He did not address the possibility that Ayers had plagiarized from Obama's earlier book. A philosophy professor from England disagreed.[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref> Ayers aconfesses to violent acts, planting bombs, says he has no regrets and feels he "should have done more."<ref>[http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127]</ref>

===New Party===
:''For the full article see '''[[New Party]]'''''
In 1995 Obama accepted the nomination and ran as a candidate of the openly [[Marxist]] New Party.<ref>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate (2004-2008)==

Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].

===Primary election (2004)===

The ''[[People's Weekly World]]'' which describes itself as "the direct descendant of the ''[[Daily Worker]]'' " that enjoys "a special relationship with the [[Communist Party USA]], founded in 1919," and publishes its news and views,<ref>[http://www.pww.org/article/static/320 About the People's Weekly World] pww.org</ref> reported on Obama's 2004 Senate primary campaign:
{{Cquote|Activists from Illinois were immersed in the campaign to elect Barak Obama to the U.S. Senate. Obama won a landslide victory in the March 16 Democratic primary.<ref>''A turning point election'', Joelle Fishman, People's Weekly World, 04/24/04.</ref>}} John Bachtell, Illinois Communist Party district organizer added,
{{Cquote|This was a historic victory. It was a victory for political independence and grassroots, coalition, and issue oriented politics over the machine and money.<ref>[http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/5145/ The CPUSA fires up its members to ‘Dump Bush!’], By Tim Wheeler, Washington correspondent, People's Weekly World , 04/24/04.</ref>}} In June the ''People’s Weekly World'' carried a piece by Dee Myles, chair of the education commission of the Communist Party USA, eulogizing [[Frank Marshall Davis]]'s old collegue, [[Vernon Jarrett]]. Myles said,
{{Cquote|from his hospital bed, [Jarrett] wrote an article appealing to Black Chicago to turn out to vote for [[Barack Obama]] in the Illinois primaries. Obama astounded everyone with an incredible landslide victory as the progressive, Black candidate for the [[Democratic Party]] nomination for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. From his sickbed, Vernon Jarrett issued a clarion call, and the people responded.<ref>[http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5331/ Vernon Jarrett: a partisan journalistic giant], Dee Myles, [[People's Weekly World]] Newspaper, Jun 5, 2004.</ref>}}

===Senate career===
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

October 2008 crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlighted Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois "for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang".<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html]</ref><ref>The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story]</ref> "'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer,'" in Obama's hometown of Chicago.<ref>"More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides." [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html]</ref>

A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.

As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

*A bill to raise the [[minimum wage]]; Obama voted against the bill when it was later attached to an Iraq war supplemental spending bill.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

=== Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and filed reports indicating money was still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.
[[File:OenEReuters.jpg|left|200px|thumb|In Egypt, June 2009.]]
=== Foreign policy experience ===

In his presidential campaign, Obama stated<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other children in Africa.

While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic.

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel.
 

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers <ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html</ref>) ISBN 0307383415
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025

==Quotes==
* Early in his campaign for president in 2007, Obama declared in an interview with the [[Chicago Tribune]], "I'm a [[Christian]]. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue ... my religious beliefs say that [[marriage]] is something sanctified between a man and a woman."<ref>http://thehill.com/cheri-jacobus/obama-and-miss-california-2009-04-23.html</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]
*[[Birthplace of Barack Obama]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[Obama birth certificate controversy]]
*[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]
*[[Stazi]]
*[[Gestapo care]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.
*James Simpson, [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html ''Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis''], American Thinker, September 28, 2008.
*[http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ ''What Is To Be Done?] Burning Questions of our Movement'', [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]], Lenin’s Collected Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961, Moscow, Volume 5, pp. 347-530.

==Sources==

*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Dont Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}
{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Illinois]]

Osama Bin Laden

2009-09-23T05:04:11Z

Brown25: It's easy to confuse Osama and Obama

''Osama redirects here. Did you mean [[Barack Hussein Obama]]?''

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Osama bin Laden''' is a [[Saudi Arabia]]n millionaire, a radical [[Sunni]] [[Muslim]], and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group widely believed<ref>By the majority of the population, except for a few "9/11 Truthers"</ref> to be responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful [[entrepreneur]] in the [[construction]] [[industry]].

During the [[Clinton Administration]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998. </ref>, bin Laden issued two Declarations of War against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by [[Saddam Hussein]] and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> However, Clinton did not take the threat seriously, and did not make an effort to capture or kill bin Laden. <ref> [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/] Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities</ref>

In bin Laden's declarations and writings, he asserts that American attacks against Muslims justify reciprocation by Muslims, including the killing of innocents as a part of militaristic [[jihad]]. He refers to Islamic states headed by individuals friendly to the United States as usurper states which are disloyal to [[Islam]], but states that anyone who converts to Islam, even President [[George_W._Bush|Bush]], will be welcomed as a brother.

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

In the 1990s, bin Laden also gave funding to Chechen terrorists fighting against Russia.[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/DJ29Ag05.html] These terrorists were later responsible for the [[Beslan school siege of 2004]]. Chechens also fought in Afghanistan against U.S. forces on behalf of the Taliban.[http://muslimvillage.net/story.php?id=370]

During the 1980s insurgency against the [[Soviet]] occupation of [[Afghanistan]] the [[Carter Administration]] initially directed help to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants, some of whom were radical Islamists. bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

In 1998, bin Laden and [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]], then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the [[Islamic Brotherhood]], announced the joining of al Qaeda and the [[Islamic Brotherhood]] to form the ''World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders''<ref> http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml</ref>. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States launched [[cruise missile]]s, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.

Bin Laden is cited by the [[United States]] government as the most wanted terrorist. He remains at large to this day despite seven years of the United States army searching for him.

== See also ==
*[[Terrorism]]
*[[FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List]]
* [[Yasser Arafat]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category: al-Qaeda]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Medicare

2009-08-21T22:53:35Z

Brown25:

'''Medicare''' is a [[socialized medicine]] program in the United States that reimburses some expenses for covered medical services for persons over 65 years old and for certain persons deemed disabled under 65 years old as follows:

*All hospital charges for covered services are reimbursed under [[Medicare Part A]]; and

*Most physician fees for covered services are reimbursed under [[Medicare Part B]] for individuals who have enrolled in Part B and make payments for that coverage.

Originally, Medicare covered only those 65 and older. In 1972, Congress added the disabled, now about 15% of beneficiaries. It also covered dialysis for kidney failure. In 2003, Bush asked for and Congress created a drug benefit. Other services such as hospice care and mammograms have been added.

Medicare is expected to eventually go bankrupt, leading to major fiscal consequences for the United States. Health care for the aged in the United States has declined with the advent of Medicare, and many elderly individuals are forced to buy "Medigap" plans from private industry to cover expenses that Medicare will not cover.

==Politics==

Medicare was first implemented as part of President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s [[Great Society]] in 1965.

Former Democratic Sen. John Breaux made a proposal which supports raising the Medicare eligibility age. [http://www.factcheck.org/overspiced_louisiana_gumbo.html]

Medicare accounts for more than one-fifth of all health spending in the U.S.. Its costs per beneficiary, about $12,000 in 2008, rose at an average annual rate of 8.5% a year from 1970 to 2007.

==Medicaid==
Medicare is entirely separate from [[Medicaid]], a federal program that provides health benefits for certain poor people without insurance.
[[category:Health Care]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Government Programs]]

Medicare

2009-08-21T22:51:08Z

Brown25: Medicare is socialized medicine that was decried by Ronald Reagan. It is not as good as private insurance

'''Medicare''' is [[socialized medicine]] in the United States that reimburses some expenses for covered medical services for persons over 65 years old and for certain persons deemed disabled under 65 years old as follows:

*All hospital charges for covered services are reimbursed under [[Medicare Part A]]; and

*Most physician fees for covered services are reimbursed under [[Medicare Part B]] for individuals who have enrolled in Part B and make payments for that coverage.

Originally, Medicare covered only those 65 and older. In 1972, Congress added the disabled, now about 15% of beneficiaries. It also covered dialysis for kidney failure. In 2003, Bush asked for and Congress created a drug benefit. Other services such as hospice care and mammograms have been added.

==Politics==

Medicare was first implemented as part of President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s [[Great Society]] in 1965.

Former Democratic Sen. John Breaux made a proposal which supports raising the Medicare eligibility age. [http://www.factcheck.org/overspiced_louisiana_gumbo.html]

Medicare accounts for more than one-fifth of all health spending in the U.S.. Its costs per beneficiary, about $12,000 in 2008, rose at an average annual rate of 8.5% a year from 1970 to 2007.

==Medicaid==
Medicare is entirely separate from [[Medicaid]], a federal program that provides health benefits for certain poor people without insurance.
[[category:Health Care]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Government Programs]]

Free trade

2009-08-19T22:54:52Z

Brown25:

'''Free trade''' is a term meaning unregulated trade between nations without [[tariffs]], quotas or subsidies applying to the goods exchanged. Since one nation has little control over another nation, without some sort of agreement between two nations, free trade might harm a particular group of people in one nation, such as laborers or consumers. However, the overall welfare of each country increases with free trade.

It is possible that free trade can exist between a potential future enemy of a country, leading to national security implications.

Free trade can have undesired side effects, such as a massive loss of manufacturing jobs by the wealthier trading partner though a mechanism known as [[offshoring]] jobs to a trading partner having cheaper labor. Moreover, nearly all of the benefits of free trade can accrue to the trading partner or its government, which may be an enemy of the wealthier trading partner.

Free trade raises moral issues as well, such as the use by a nation of slave labor or use of proceeds from the trading to build military weapons to be used against other nations.

<blockquote>
The basic argument for free trade is based on the economic theory of comparative advantage: each region should concentrate on what it can produce most cheaply and efficiently and should exchange its products for those it is less able to produce economically. Cf: Columbia Encyclopedia.
</blockquote>

There are some regional free trade agreements like the ''North American Free Trade Agreement'' (NAFTA) and the ''Free Trade Area of the Americas'' (FTAA); in [[Europe]], ''The European Free Trade Association'' (EFTA), which is an intergovernmental organisation set up for the promotion of free trade and economic integration to the benefit of its four Member States: [[Iceland]], [[Liechtenstein]], [[Norway]] and [[Switzerland]]. [http://www.efta.int/]

== See also ==
*[[Free enterprise]]
*[[Trading]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/ Trade, Economy, & Related Issues]
*[http://www.freetrade.org/ Center for Trade Policy Studies]
*[http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/Statis_e.htm International trade and tariff data] World Trade Organization.

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Taxation]]

Free trade

2009-08-19T22:48:23Z

Brown25: Unsourced liberal bias removed

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-16T04:20:20Z

Brown25:

Andy, I was mistaken in stating that the Coase theorem is an appropriate justification for cap and trade, because it is not. The Coase theorem would not interfere with the level of production, just the initial allocation of property. Thus, I'll correct my edits. Your paragraph on excuses is fine. What I will do is maybe expound on some of the things you've written, so that readers can know precisely what the Coase theorem states and what it does not state. Namely, the Coase theorem does not state that there is an interference in the level of production either through a quota or through taxes. The Coase theorem only states that invariance occurs regardless of the initial allocation. FYI, half of Google's sources on the Coase theorem get it wrong. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 00:35, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
:I think, though I'm not certain, there is an interesting extension of the Coase theorem. Even if you had a tax on productive behavior from a productive class which was then transfered to an unproductive class and even if flow of these taxes could change direction and were varying based upon arbitrary conditions, so long as the classes are discrete and unchanging in their compositions, the invariance property of the efficient outcome from the Coase theorem would still hold, given the assumptions used in the Coase theorem. Amazing, though I'm not implying I would ever endorse such a policy, namely because such circumstances would never exist in the real world, it rewards laziness and lack of prudence, and even a minor misunderstanding of this line of thinking could lead to frankly Communistic policies. Thus, I want to be and will be very careful in how I approach this in the mainspace. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 22:06, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

:: There is still much to be gleaned from the [[Coase theorem]] and I look forward to discussing and developing it further with you. That said, I think taxes are a form of transaction costs and thus do interfere with an efficient level of activity. If an owner of a railroad is taxed nearly 100%, then he will run the railroad less than if he's taxed at a reasonable rate, or at no rate. Everyone is worse off then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: Your statement is absolutely correct. I was thinking about a situation, so hypothetical, that it would never occur in the real world. My assumptions for this problem that I was playing around with last night are as follows:

:::1. There are two people in this society only.

:::2. Each person has 100 units of value currently.

:::3. One person is called Hard Worker. If Hard Worker works he can earn 20 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 1 unit of value. He would give 2 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::4. The second person is called Lazy Man. If Lazy Man works he can earn 10 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 0.5 units of value. He would give 8 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::5. There is a a code in this society that requires an 80% tax on gross earnings. The tax receipts are then redistributed equally among the persons.

:::6. Gifts can be exchanged among members and agreements made, but are also taxed at 80%.

:::7. Hard Worker and Lazy Man can communicate and negotiate freely.

:::The question is, under these circumstances, what will be the equilibrium level of output, in days worked, for Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the final wealth of Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the equilibrium level of output, if there was no redistribution of earnings? What will the final wealth then be of the two persons? Now presume that Lazy Man is no longer lazy. He now only values leisure at 1 unit of value. Solve this problem under both the conditions of redistribution of wealth and no redistribution of wealth.

:::I will post the answers I got for this problem tonight hopefully. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 16:23, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: You present a fascinating problem. I may try to use it as one or more exercises in my upcoming [[Economics Lectures]], unless you object. I'll try to solve it today before you post your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: Each person works until they can afford leisure, and when the value of the leisure is as much as the after-tax gains from the work. For the Hard Worker, that means he works ten days and then stops (due to the high rate of taxation). For the Lazy Worker, that means he works until he earns 8 units to pay for leisure. At the start he makes 2 units per day after taxes, but that drops and some math is required to calculate how many days more than 4 that he must work to earn 8 units pay for leisure. (It is not entirely clear from the question that the leisure actually ''costs'' the workers money.)

:::: It gets more complicated as the workers burn through their savings with leisure, however, particularly with their unrealistically declining earning power.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I intended to mean that the value of leisure is an opportunity cost. That is if I could, I would give 8 units of value to have the day off, maybe amble around the town square, play a theology professor on Wikipedia etc. Of course, time is a perishable item that can never come back. Of course, if I could now buy something I am willing to spend more than 8 units of value, let's say in this hypotetical society a scooter costs 10 units of value, I would rather have that than the day off. I used rapidly declining earnings simply for simplicity's sake. Of course, I could in writing this problem denote my costs for work and my revenue that I will earn. Entepreneurs usually have to deal with declining marginal revenue on a much more apparent basis than laborers who are paid a constant rate until their marginal profit produced equals their wage. The concepts that I used to solve this problem, aside from the Coase theorem itself, were [[Nash equilibrium]], [[game theory]], and [[Pareto efficiency]].

::::: I have no objection to this problem being used in the economics course. The main thing that I think would be prudent is if you could peer review this problem and ensure that both the question is sound and understandable for your audience of high school students and the solution is correctly solved before the semester starts. I have solved out the problem, but I will hold off on posting it for a little bit so you can take into account my clarification. Specifically, leisure is a non-monetary commodity that cannot be bought, but has a value to each person. There is no requirement or opportunity to purchase leisure time.

::::: I can also create some additional Coase theorem problems that present a scenario of pollution caused to a third party with a fourth party perhaps existing who can mitigate the pollution most efficiently. Also, I would like to ask some concept questions on what the Coase theorem is or what it implies and what it is not. Specifically, I would like to ask:

:::::: "[[President Obama]] has articulated to the American people that a new program called [[cap and trade]] is a market-based way to combat pollution. Does the Coase theorem justify [[cap and trade]]? Why or why not?"

::::::: ''No. The Coase theorem only states that the efficient outcome will be reached regardless of initial property allocation (or legal entitement) when there are zero transaction costs and when there is strong rule of law. Necessarily of course, these legal obligations can exist only between private parties who are then able to negotiate and bargain freely and in full faith.''

:::::: "Is the outcome generated after implementation of [[cap and trade]] optimal? Why or why not?"

::::::: ''No. The Coase theorem does not state that the government can arbitrarily set a quota and simply expect that that level would be the optimum level. Under cap and trade, there is no legal way for private parties to exceed the government quota. Under the assumptions of the Coase theorem the government never imposes a restriction on pursuing the optimal outcome, just potentially a legal entitlement only between private parties. For example, the cheapest method to deal with the negative effects of carbon emissions may be to plant trees (or it may even be determined there is only a negligible effect on overall welfare.) Under the assumptions of the Coase theorem, the polluter may be obligated to pay the specific injured party an arbitrary payment for each unit of pollution. However then, there exists an infinite number of ways for the private parties to bargain to achieve the optimal outcome, including even the injured party subsidizing the polluter to continue production so he can still receive payments. A cap, or quota, on emissions leaves private parties no legal recourse to explore these innovative methods of combatting pollution.''

::::: I would also like to ask on this specific problem:

:::::: "Do your results from the above problem imply that levying a progressive tax on a state or country can ever practically not inhibit efficiency? Why or why not?"

:::::::''No. The Coase theorem only holds when there are zero bargaining costs and everybody is able to negotiate freely in perfect faith. In reality, however, if an unproductive class ended up with the best welfare outcome via legal entitelments and bargaining, members of the productive class would probably migrate to the unproductive class. Thus, the resulting outcome would not be Pareto efficient because the assumption that parties would be able to negotiate in perfect faith is obviously violated.''

:::::: "What reason or reasons justify any apparent contradiction between the principles of a free market and the results from this problem?"

::::::: ''The Coase theorem only holds under conditions of a strong rule of law and zero bargaining costs. Currently, these assumptions rarely exist in reality for most economics problems. Moreover, the main motivation of the Coase theorem was to show that there is an economic efficient way to deal with '''unintentional''' wrongs not cured by law, not to '''deliberately''' pursue unjust legal entitlements just to test whether the Coase theorem will still produce the optimal outcome. Most of the time, it will not because the assumptions of the Coase theorem cannot be satisfied.''

:::::: "What perhaps could be gleaned from the results of this problem?"

::::::: ''One observation could be that if there were a loving enviornment among Christians, where people could communicate freely and trust each other fully, a system of private charity could flourish where individuals would still be efficient.''

:::::: "Using the concepts you have learned solving this problem, why would a communal society in Acts work efficiently but installing a Communist system not work out?"

:::::: "What are the implications of the result of this problem in determining whether private charity or public assistance is better? Is there a situation where private charity be implemented while maintaining efficiency? What about public assistance?"

::::: Hopefully, my clarification helps. Let me know what you think of these additional problems and if you have any questions. I'm pretty sure that any serious student of Conservapedia will get the correct answer on most, if not all, of the follow up conceptual questions, though the rationale required may require critical thinking. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 18:52, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: I provided some answers for the conceptual questions. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 00:20, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-16T03:40:12Z

Brown25:

Andy, I was mistaken in stating that the Coase theorem is an appropriate justification for cap and trade, because it is not. The Coase theorem would not interfere with the level of production, just the initial allocation of property. Thus, I'll correct my edits. Your paragraph on excuses is fine. What I will do is maybe expound on some of the things you've written, so that readers can know precisely what the Coase theorem states and what it does not state. Namely, the Coase theorem does not state that there is an interference in the level of production either through a quota or through taxes. The Coase theorem only states that invariance occurs regardless of the initial allocation. FYI, half of Google's sources on the Coase theorem get it wrong. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 00:35, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
:I think, though I'm not certain, there is an interesting extension of the Coase theorem. Even if you had a tax on productive behavior from a productive class which was then transfered to an unproductive class and even if flow of these taxes could change direction and were varying based upon arbitrary conditions, so long as the classes are discrete and unchanging in their compositions, the invariance property of the efficient outcome from the Coase theorem would still hold, given the assumptions used in the Coase theorem. Amazing, though I'm not implying I would ever endorse such a policy, namely because such circumstances would never exist in the real world, it rewards laziness and lack of prudence, and even a minor misunderstanding of this line of thinking could lead to frankly Communistic policies. Thus, I want to be and will be very careful in how I approach this in the mainspace. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 22:06, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

:: There is still much to be gleaned from the [[Coase theorem]] and I look forward to discussing and developing it further with you. That said, I think taxes are a form of transaction costs and thus do interfere with an efficient level of activity. If an owner of a railroad is taxed nearly 100%, then he will run the railroad less than if he's taxed at a reasonable rate, or at no rate. Everyone is worse off then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: Your statement is absolutely correct. I was thinking about a situation, so hypothetical, that it would never occur in the real world. My assumptions for this problem that I was playing around with last night are as follows:

:::1. There are two people in this society only.

:::2. Each person has 100 units of value currently.

:::3. One person is called Hard Worker. If Hard Worker works he can earn 20 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 1 unit of value. He would give 2 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::4. The second person is called Lazy Man. If Lazy Man works he can earn 10 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 0.5 units of value. He would give 8 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::5. There is a a code in this society that requires an 80% tax on gross earnings. The tax receipts are then redistributed equally among the persons.

:::6. Gifts can be exchanged among members and agreements made, but are also taxed at 80%.

:::7. Hard Worker and Lazy Man can communicate and negotiate freely.

:::The question is, under these circumstances, what will be the equilibrium level of output, in days worked, for Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the final wealth of Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the equilibrium level of output, if there was no redistribution of earnings? What will the final wealth then be of the two persons? Now presume that Lazy Man is no longer lazy. He now only values leisure at 1 unit of value. Solve this problem under both the conditions of redistribution of wealth and no redistribution of wealth.

:::I will post the answers I got for this problem tonight hopefully. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 16:23, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: You present a fascinating problem. I may try to use it as one or more exercises in my upcoming [[Economics Lectures]], unless you object. I'll try to solve it today before you post your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: Each person works until they can afford leisure, and when the value of the leisure is as much as the after-tax gains from the work. For the Hard Worker, that means he works ten days and then stops (due to the high rate of taxation). For the Lazy Worker, that means he works until he earns 8 units to pay for leisure. At the start he makes 2 units per day after taxes, but that drops and some math is required to calculate how many days more than 4 that he must work to earn 8 units pay for leisure. (It is not entirely clear from the question that the leisure actually ''costs'' the workers money.)

:::: It gets more complicated as the workers burn through their savings with leisure, however, particularly with their unrealistically declining earning power.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I intended to mean that the value of leisure is an opportunity cost. That is if I could, I would give 8 units of value to have the day off, maybe amble around the town square, play a theology professor on Wikipedia etc. Of course, time is a perishable item that can never come back. Of course, if I could now buy something I am willing to spend more than 8 units of value, let's say in this hypotetical society a scooter costs 10 units of value, I would rather have that than the day off. I used rapidly declining earnings simply for simplicity's sake. Of course, I could in writing this problem denote my costs for work and my revenue that I will earn. Entepreneurs usually have to deal with declining marginal revenue on a much more apparent basis than laborers who are paid a constant rate until their marginal profit produced equals their wage. The concepts that I used to solve this problem, aside from the Coase theorem itself, were [[Nash equilibrium]], [[game theory]], and [[Pareto efficiency]].

::::: I have no objection to this problem being used in the economics course. The main thing that I think would be prudent is if you could peer review this problem and ensure that both the question is sound and understandable for your audience of high school students and the solution is correctly solved before the semester starts. I have solved out the problem, but I will hold off on posting it for a little bit so you can take into account my clarification. Specifically, leisure is a non-monetary commodity that cannot be bought, but has a value to each person. There is no requirement or opportunity to purchase leisure time.

::::: I can also create some additional Coase theorem problems that present a scenario of pollution caused to a third party with a fourth party perhaps existing who can mitigate the pollution most efficiently. Also, I would like to ask some concept questions on what the Coase theorem is or what it implies and what it is not. Specifically, I would like to ask:

::::: "[[President Obama]] has articulated to the American people that a new program called [[cap and trade]] is a market-based way to combat pollution. Does the Coase theorem justify [[cap and trade]]? Why or why not?"

::::: ''No. The Coase theorem only states that the efficient outcome will be reached regardless of initial property allocation (or legal entitement) when there are zero transaction costs and when there is strong rule of law. Necessarily of course, these legal obligations can exist only between private parties who are then able to negotiate and bargain freely and in full faith.''

::::: "Is the outcome generated after implementation of [[cap and trade]] optimal? Why or why not?"

::::: ''No. The Coase theorem does not state that the government can arbitrarily set a quota and simply expect that that level would be the optimum level. Under cap and trade, there is no legal way for private parties to exceed the government quota. Under the assumptions of the Coase theorem the government never imposes a restriction on pursuing the optimal outcome, just potentially a legal entitlement only between private parties. For example, the cheapest method to deal with the negative effects of carbon emissions may be to plant trees (or it may even be determined there is only a negligible effect on overall welfare.) Under the assumptions of the Coase theorem, the polluter may be obligated to pay the specific injured party an arbitrary payment for each unit of pollution. However then, there exists an infinite number of ways for the private parties to bargain to achieve the optimal outcome, including even the injured party subsidizing the polluter to continue production so he can still receive payments. A cap, or quota, on emissions leaves private parties no legal recourse to explore these innovative methods of combatting pollution.''

::::: I would also like to ask on this specific problem:

::::: "Do your results from the above problem imply that levying a progressive tax on a state or country can ever practically not inhibit efficiency? Why or why not?"

::::: "What reason or reasons justify the answer that you arrived at in the face of what you know about economics?"

::::: "Is there any contradiction between the principles of a free market and the results from this problem?"

::::: "What perhaps could be gleaned from the results of this problem?"

::::: "Using the concepts you have learned solving this problem, why would a communal society in Acts work efficiently but installing a Communist system not work out?"

::::: "What are the implications of the result of this problem in determining whether private charity or public assistance is better? Is there a situation where private charity be implemented while maintaining efficiency? What about public assistance?"

::::: Hopefully, my clarification helps. Let me know what you think of these additional problems and if you have any questions. I'm pretty sure that any serious student of Conservapedia will get the correct answer on most, if not all, of the follow up conceptual questions, though the rationale required may require critical thinking. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 18:52, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-16T03:27:59Z

Brown25: First model answer

Andy, I was mistaken in stating that the Coase theorem is an appropriate justification for cap and trade, because it is not. The Coase theorem would not interfere with the level of production, just the initial allocation of property. Thus, I'll correct my edits. Your paragraph on excuses is fine. What I will do is maybe expound on some of the things you've written, so that readers can know precisely what the Coase theorem states and what it does not state. Namely, the Coase theorem does not state that there is an interference in the level of production either through a quota or through taxes. The Coase theorem only states that invariance occurs regardless of the initial allocation. FYI, half of Google's sources on the Coase theorem get it wrong. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 00:35, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
:I think, though I'm not certain, there is an interesting extension of the Coase theorem. Even if you had a tax on productive behavior from a productive class which was then transfered to an unproductive class and even if flow of these taxes could change direction and were varying based upon arbitrary conditions, so long as the classes are discrete and unchanging in their compositions, the invariance property of the efficient outcome from the Coase theorem would still hold, given the assumptions used in the Coase theorem. Amazing, though I'm not implying I would ever endorse such a policy, namely because such circumstances would never exist in the real world, it rewards laziness and lack of prudence, and even a minor misunderstanding of this line of thinking could lead to frankly Communistic policies. Thus, I want to be and will be very careful in how I approach this in the mainspace. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 22:06, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

:: There is still much to be gleaned from the [[Coase theorem]] and I look forward to discussing and developing it further with you. That said, I think taxes are a form of transaction costs and thus do interfere with an efficient level of activity. If an owner of a railroad is taxed nearly 100%, then he will run the railroad less than if he's taxed at a reasonable rate, or at no rate. Everyone is worse off then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: Your statement is absolutely correct. I was thinking about a situation, so hypothetical, that it would never occur in the real world. My assumptions for this problem that I was playing around with last night are as follows:

:::1. There are two people in this society only.

:::2. Each person has 100 units of value currently.

:::3. One person is called Hard Worker. If Hard Worker works he can earn 20 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 1 unit of value. He would give 2 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::4. The second person is called Lazy Man. If Lazy Man works he can earn 10 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 0.5 units of value. He would give 8 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::5. There is a a code in this society that requires an 80% tax on gross earnings. The tax receipts are then redistributed equally among the persons.

:::6. Gifts can be exchanged among members and agreements made, but are also taxed at 80%.

:::7. Hard Worker and Lazy Man can communicate and negotiate freely.

:::The question is, under these circumstances, what will be the equilibrium level of output, in days worked, for Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the final wealth of Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the equilibrium level of output, if there was no redistribution of earnings? What will the final wealth then be of the two persons? Now presume that Lazy Man is no longer lazy. He now only values leisure at 1 unit of value. Solve this problem under both the conditions of redistribution of wealth and no redistribution of wealth.

:::I will post the answers I got for this problem tonight hopefully. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 16:23, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: You present a fascinating problem. I may try to use it as one or more exercises in my upcoming [[Economics Lectures]], unless you object. I'll try to solve it today before you post your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: Each person works until they can afford leisure, and when the value of the leisure is as much as the after-tax gains from the work. For the Hard Worker, that means he works ten days and then stops (due to the high rate of taxation). For the Lazy Worker, that means he works until he earns 8 units to pay for leisure. At the start he makes 2 units per day after taxes, but that drops and some math is required to calculate how many days more than 4 that he must work to earn 8 units pay for leisure. (It is not entirely clear from the question that the leisure actually ''costs'' the workers money.)

:::: It gets more complicated as the workers burn through their savings with leisure, however, particularly with their unrealistically declining earning power.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I intended to mean that the value of leisure is an opportunity cost. That is if I could, I would give 8 units of value to have the day off, maybe amble around the town square, play a theology professor on Wikipedia etc. Of course, time is a perishable item that can never come back. Of course, if I could now buy something I am willing to spend more than 8 units of value, let's say in this hypotetical society a scooter costs 10 units of value, I would rather have that than the day off. I used rapidly declining earnings simply for simplicity's sake. Of course, I could in writing this problem denote my costs for work and my revenue that I will earn. Entepreneurs usually have to deal with declining marginal revenue on a much more apparent basis than laborers who are paid a constant rate until their marginal profit produced equals their wage. The concepts that I used to solve this problem, aside from the Coase theorem itself, were [[Nash equilibrium]], [[game theory]], and [[Pareto efficiency]].

::::: I have no objection to this problem being used in the economics course. The main thing that I think would be prudent is if you could peer review this problem and ensure that both the question is sound and understandable for your audience of high school students and the solution is correctly solved before the semester starts. I have solved out the problem, but I will hold off on posting it for a little bit so you can take into account my clarification. Specifically, leisure is a non-monetary commodity that cannot be bought, but has a value to each person. There is no requirement or opportunity to purchase leisure time.

::::: I can also create some additional Coase theorem problems that present a scenario of pollution caused to a third party with a fourth party perhaps existing who can mitigate the pollution most efficiently. Also, I would like to ask some concept questions on what the Coase theorem is or what it implies and what it is not. Specifically, I would like to ask:

::::: "[[President Obama]] has articulated to the American people that a new program called [[cap and trade]] is a market-based way to combat pollution. Does the Coase theorem justify [[cap and trade]]? Why or why not?"

::::: ''No. The Coase theorem only states that the efficient outcome will be reached regardless of initial property allocation (or legal entitement) when there are zero transaction costs and when there is strong rule of law. Necessarily of course, these legal obligations can exist only between private parties who are then able to negotiate and bargain freely and in full faith. The Coase theorem does not state that the government can arbitrarily set a quota and simply expect that that level would be the optimum level. Under cap and trade, there is no legal way for private parties to exceed the government quota. For example, the cheapest method to deal with the negative effects of carbon emissions may be to plant trees or it may even be determined there is only a negligible effect on overall welfare. A cap, or quota, on emissions leaves private parties no legal recourse to explore these innovative methods of combatting pollution.''

::::: "Is the outcome generated after implementation of [[cap and trade]] optimal? Why or why not?"

::::: I would also like to ask on this specific problem:

::::: "Do your results from the above problem imply that levying a progressive tax on a state or country can ever practically not inhibit efficiency? Why or why not?"

::::: "What reason or reasons justify the answer that you arrived at in the face of what you know about economics?"

::::: "Is there any contradiction between the principles of a free market and the results from this problem?"

::::: "What perhaps could be gleaned from the results of this problem?"

::::: "Using the concepts you have learned solving this problem, why would a communal society in Acts work efficiently but installing a Communist system not work out?"

::::: "What are the implications of the result of this problem in determining whether private charity or public assistance is better? Is there a situation where private charity be implemented while maintaining efficiency? What about public assistance?"

::::: Hopefully, my clarification helps. Let me know what you think of these additional problems and if you have any questions. I'm pretty sure that any serious student of Conservapedia will get the correct answer on most, if not all, of the follow up conceptual questions, though the rationale required may require critical thinking. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 18:52, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-15T22:52:39Z

Brown25: Added some follow up questions on concepts

Andy, I was mistaken in stating that the Coase theorem is an appropriate justification for cap and trade, because it is not. The Coase theorem would not interfere with the level of production, just the initial allocation of property. Thus, I'll correct my edits. Your paragraph on excuses is fine. What I will do is maybe expound on some of the things you've written, so that readers can know precisely what the Coase theorem states and what it does not state. Namely, the Coase theorem does not state that there is an interference in the level of production either through a quota or through taxes. The Coase theorem only states that invariance occurs regardless of the initial allocation. FYI, half of Google's sources on the Coase theorem get it wrong. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 00:35, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
:I think, though I'm not certain, there is an interesting extension of the Coase theorem. Even if you had a tax on productive behavior from a productive class which was then transfered to an unproductive class and even if flow of these taxes could change direction and were varying based upon arbitrary conditions, so long as the classes are discrete and unchanging in their compositions, the invariance property of the efficient outcome from the Coase theorem would still hold, given the assumptions used in the Coase theorem. Amazing, though I'm not implying I would ever endorse such a policy, namely because such circumstances would never exist in the real world, it rewards laziness and lack of prudence, and even a minor misunderstanding of this line of thinking could lead to frankly Communistic policies. Thus, I want to be and will be very careful in how I approach this in the mainspace. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 22:06, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

:: There is still much to be gleaned from the [[Coase theorem]] and I look forward to discussing and developing it further with you. That said, I think taxes are a form of transaction costs and thus do interfere with an efficient level of activity. If an owner of a railroad is taxed nearly 100%, then he will run the railroad less than if he's taxed at a reasonable rate, or at no rate. Everyone is worse off then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: Your statement is absolutely correct. I was thinking about a situation, so hypothetical, that it would never occur in the real world. My assumptions for this problem that I was playing around with last night are as follows:

:::1. There are two people in this society only.

:::2. Each person has 100 units of value currently.

:::3. One person is called Hard Worker. If Hard Worker works he can earn 20 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 1 unit of value. He would give 2 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::4. The second person is called Lazy Man. If Lazy Man works he can earn 10 units of value. After each successive day, this potential drops by 0.5 units of value. He would give 8 units of value to have the day off (leisure).

:::5. There is a a code in this society that requires an 80% tax on gross earnings. The tax receipts are then redistributed equally among the persons.

:::6. Gifts can be exchanged among members and agreements made, but are also taxed at 80%.

:::7. Hard Worker and Lazy Man can communicate and negotiate freely.

:::The question is, under these circumstances, what will be the equilibrium level of output, in days worked, for Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the final wealth of Hard Worker and Lazy Man? What will be the equilibrium level of output, if there was no redistribution of earnings? What will the final wealth then be of the two persons? Now presume that Lazy Man is no longer lazy. He now only values leisure at 1 unit of value. Solve this problem under both the conditions of redistribution of wealth and no redistribution of wealth.

:::I will post the answers I got for this problem tonight hopefully. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 16:23, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: You present a fascinating problem. I may try to use it as one or more exercises in my upcoming [[Economics Lectures]], unless you object. I'll try to solve it today before you post your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: Each person works until they can afford leisure, and when the value of the leisure is as much as the after-tax gains from the work. For the Hard Worker, that means he works ten days and then stops (due to the high rate of taxation). For the Lazy Worker, that means he works until he earns 8 units to pay for leisure. At the start he makes 2 units per day after taxes, but that drops and some math is required to calculate how many days more than 4 that he must work to earn 8 units pay for leisure. (It is not entirely clear from the question that the leisure actually ''costs'' the workers money.)

:::: It gets more complicated as the workers burn through their savings with leisure, however, particularly with their unrealistically declining earning power.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I intended to mean that the value of leisure is an opportunity cost. That is if I could, I would give 8 units of value to have the day off, maybe amble around the town square, play a theology professor on Wikipedia etc. Of course, time is a perishable item that can never come back. Of course, if I could now buy something I am willing to spend more than 8 units of value, let's say in this hypotetical society a scooter costs 10 units of value, I would rather have that than the day off. I used rapidly declining earnings simply for simplicity's sake. Of course, I could in writing this problem denote my costs for work and my revenue that I will earn. Entepreneurs usually have to deal with declining marginal revenue on a much more apparent basis than laborers who are paid a constant rate until their marginal profit produced equals their wage. The concepts that I used to solve this problem, aside from the Coase theorem itself, were [[Nash equilibrium]], [[game theory]], and [[Pareto efficiency]].

::::: I have no objection to this problem being used in the economics course. The main thing that I think would be prudent is if you could peer review this problem and ensure that both the question is sound and understandable for your audience of high school students and the solution is correctly solved before the semester starts. I have solved out the problem, but I will hold off on posting it for a little bit so you can take into account my clarification. Specifically, leisure is a non-monetary commodity that cannot be bought, but has a value to each person. There is no requirement or opportunity to purchase leisure time.

::::: I can also create some additional Coase theorem problems that present a scenario of pollution caused to a third party with a fourth party perhaps existing who can mitigate the pollution most efficiently. Also, I would like to ask some concept questions on what the Coase theorem is or what it implies and what it is not. Specifically, I would like to ask:

::::: "President Obama has articulated to the American people that a new program called [[cap and trade]] is a market-based way to combat pollution. Does the Coase theorem justify [[cap and trade]]? Why or why not?"

::::: "Is the outcome generated after implementation of [[cap and trade]] optimal? Why or why not?"

::::: I would also like to ask on this specific problem:

::::: "Do your results from the above problem imply that levying a progressive tax on a state or country can ever practically not inhibit efficiency? Why or why not?"

::::: "What reason or reasons justify the answer that you arrived at in the face of what you know about economics?"

::::: "Is there any contradiction between the principles of a free market and the results from this problem?"

::::: "What perhaps could be gleaned from the results of this problem?"

::::: "Using the concepts you have learned solving this problem, why would a communal society in Acts work efficiently but installing a Communist system not work out?"

::::: "What are the implications of the result of this problem in determining whether private charity or public assistance is better? Is there a situation where private charity be implemented while maintaining efficiency? What about public assistance?"

::::: Hopefully, my clarification helps. Let me know what you think of these additional problems and if you have any questions. I'm pretty sure that any serious student of Conservapedia will get the correct answer on most, if not all of the follow up conceptual questions, though the rationale required may require critical thinking. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 18:52, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-15T22:20:52Z

Brown25: Clarification

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-14T20:25:43Z

Brown25:

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-14T20:25:01Z

Brown25:

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-14T20:23:56Z

Brown25: Hypothetical problem that would not occur in real life probably

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-14T02:06:44Z

Brown25:

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-14T01:50:47Z

Brown25:

Talk:Coase theorem

2009-08-14T01:50:34Z

Brown25: