https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=HacnocteestlucetConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-10-07T06:20:08ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ben_Strickland&diff=1185745Ben Strickland2015-12-07T19:02:16Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Benjamin F. Strickland II''', is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander (CDR) and whistleblower advocate who alleged unlawful retaliation from his Coast Guard Pacific Area chain-of-command and Obama administration Department of Homeland Security officials in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Early life and education==<br />
<br />
CDR Strickland was born in 1972 and is a native of Seattle, Washington. He graduated from Maine Maritime Academy in 1995 with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Nautical Science. He attended the U.S. Naval War College in 2009 graduating with a Masters of Arts degree in National Security and Strategic Studies. He is a graduate of the Maritime Advanced Warfighting School (MAWS) and is a qualified Joint Operational Planner. <ref>[http://www.benstrickland.net www.benstrickland.net] </ref><br />
<br />
==Career==<br />
<br />
U.S. Navy: Having enlisted in the United States Naval Reserve in 1992, upon graduation from Maine Maritime Academy in 1995 CDR Strickland was honorably discharged to accept a commission as an Ensign and went on to serve three years active duty in the regular Navy. His initial assignment at sea was in USS Hopper (DDG-70) at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii where he completed initial warfare qualifications while serving as Electronic Warfare Officer, and later First Lieutenant.<br />
<br />
U.S. Coast Guard: In 1998, CDR Strickland transferred to the Coast Guard where he was assigned to Marine Safety Office Puget Sound in Seattle, Washington. There he qualified as a Senior Marine Inspector, enforcing US and International maritime regulations and safety standards for foreign and domestic vessels. He also served as the unit Special Interest Vessel (SIV) Officer, supervising the tracking and reporting of high-interest shipping for national intelligence agencies. In 2000 he returned to sea duty as Weapons Officer in USCGC Sherman (WHEC-720) at Alameda, California, completing patrols in the Bering Sea and Eastern Pacific. SHERMAN also deployed to the Arabian Gulf, serving as Surface Action Group (SAG) Commander for Middle East Force 01-1 and Maritime Interdiction Operations Coordinator (XJ) for the HARRY S. TRUMAN Battlegroup. In theatre as a Tactical Action Officer (TAO), CDR Strickland coordinated maritime enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq and air surveillance operations in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. Upon OUTCHOP from FIFTH Fleet, SHERMAN transited home to Alameda via circumnavigation of the world.<br />
<br />
In 2002, CDR Strickland was assigned as Coast Guard Liaison Officer at Afloat Training Group Pacific Northwest in Everett, Washington. There he qualified as an Afloat Training Specialist, managing the training, assessment and certification for three different classes of cutters as the Pacific Area Commander’s direct representative. From 2004 to 2006, he served as Operations Officer in USCGC Midgett (WHEC-726) at Seattle, Washington, coordinating Homeland Security, Search and Rescue, Fisheries and Counter-Drug missions throughout the Pacific in support of Operations NOBLE EAGLE, ARCTIC SAFEGUARD, BERING SHIELD and CAPER FOCUS. CDR Strickland commanded USCGC Roanoke Island (WPB-1346) (WPB-1346) at Homer, Alaska from 2006 to 2008[6] before attending the College of Command and Staff and Maritime Advanced Warfighting School at Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. CDR Strickland then performed a three month operational warfare assignment comprising contingency, adaptive and collaborative planning in the development of a formal Concept Plan (CONPLAN) for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.<br />
<br />
From 2009 to 2011, he was assigned as a Strategic Planner in the Office of Defense Operations (CG-532) at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC where he executed responsibility for Coast Guard input into National Defense strategy documents, plans and policy, coordination of service chief-level staff talks, resourcing of Joint Staff global force management requests, and also served as the Desk Officer for all U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command issues. CDR Strickland returned to sea as Operations Officer in USCGC Stratton (WMSL-752) at Alameda, California from July 2011 to June 2012 before assuming duties as Executive Officer in USCGC Munro (WHEC-724) at Kodiak, Alaska in July 2012. a. After his whistleblowing complaints, in 2014 he was reassigned to Coast Guard Headquarters as the Support Division Chief in the Office of Counterterrorism and Defense Operations (CG-ODO-3). He retired from active duty in 2015.<br />
<br />
Whistleblowing Activity: On May 23, 2013 CDR Strickland was serving as Acting Commanding Officer onboard USCGC Munro (WHEC-724) homeported in Kodiak, Alaska when he made an unrestricted reported regarding a sexual assault alleged to have been committed upon a MUNRO crewmember. CDR Strickland reported the sexual assault allegations immediately to his immediate superior in Command, then-VADM Paul Zukunft and requested an investigation by the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS), participated as a witness in the investigations which stemmed from his report, and later expressed his belief of waste, abuse of authority and gross mismanagement by CGIS and senior Coast Guard management officials. After his whistleblowing activity and complaint that CGIS was abusing it's authority and not properly investigating the sexual assault, CDR Strickland became the target of the very investigations which stemmed from his report and was subsequently subjected to multiple acts of retaliation. CDR Strickland was removed from his primary duties, received a derogatory Officer Evaluation Report (OER), and placed in a billet not commensurate with his paygrade as a senior officer. CDR Strickland subsequently filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) which was accepted for investigation. His has a case pending adjudication by the Board for Correction of Military Records to have the retaliation taken against him removed from his Coast Guard personnel record.<ref>[http://www.militarycorruption.com/benstrickland.htm COAST GUARD WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATED AGAINST AFTER REPORTING SEXUAL ASSAULT]</ref> <ref> [http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/02/27/coast-guard-sexual-assault-cgis-investigation-firing/23166307/ Sacked cutter XO says he was target of endless inquest] </ref><br />
<br />
Post Retirement: In July 2015, CDR Strickland accepted a civilian position in the maritime industry. He also serves as a member of the executive leadership team for the Washington, DC area-based Alliance for Whistleblowers.<br />
<br />
==Military awards==<br />
CDR Strickland's personal decorations include:<br />
<br />
Coast Guard Cutterman Insignia,<br />
Navy Surface Warfare Officer Insignia,<br />
Navy Merchant Marine Reserve/USNR Insignia,<br />
Coast Guard Command Afloat Device,<br />
<br />
Coast Guard Commendation Medal (3),<br />
Navy Commendation Medal,<br />
Coast Guard Achievement Medal (3),<br />
Navy Achievement Medal,<br />
Coast Guard Presidential Unit Citation,<br />
Coast Guard Unit Commendation,<br />
Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation,<br />
Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation,<br />
Coast Guard Team Commendation (6),<br />
Coast Guard "E" Ribbon,<br />
National Defense Medal (2),<br />
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal,<br />
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal,<br />
Coast Guard 9/11 Ribbon,<br />
Coast Guard Special Operations Ribbon (4),<br />
Coast Guard Sea Service Ribbon (4),<br />
Coast Guard Expert Rifle Medal,<br />
Coast Guard Pistol Marksman Ribbon<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Daily_Show&diff=1185627The Daily Show2015-12-06T17:26:05Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: /* Jon Stewart on The Daily Show */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''The Daily Show''''' (its current incarnation is called '''''The Daily Show with Trevor Noah''''') is a [[satire|satirical]] fake news program first aired in 1996 which airs on cable network [[Comedy Central]]. The show's news team presents, "news like you've never seen it before -- unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or expensive graphics."<ref name=aboutdailyshow>''Comedy Central's The Daily Show''. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/about About the show]</ref> ''The Daily Show'' was created by Lizz Winstead and Madeleine Smithberg in 1996, hosted by Craig Kilborn until 1999 when [[Jon Stewart]] took over the anchor's chair.<ref name=aboutdailyshow/> The show has been recognized with a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy]]s.<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref><ref name=aboutdailyshow/><br />
<br />
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, and then Jon Stewart hosted the show until 2015 when he retired to become a producer for [[Stephen Colbert]]'s late night endeavor on CBS. South African born "comedian" Trevor Noah currently hosts the program.<br />
<br />
== Jon Stewart on ''The Daily Show'' ==<br />
Jon Stewart, a [[liberal]], is was host of ''The Daily Show'' until he quit in mid-2015. In the past he often satirized [[George W. Bush]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], Congress, and American foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/ Jon Stewart Mocks Bush’s Claims on Diplomacy], July 11, 2006.</ref> Stewart will display video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which Republicans and other conservative politicians are made to look silly, using clips which are often edited or taken out of context so that they appear to be contradicting themselves. The sound bites of clips are typically edited to make Senate speeches appear ridiculous. However, due to Stewart's political values, he has typically provided an easy ride to President [[Obama]] and most other liberals.<br />
<br />
Jon's interviews have ranged from semi-serious policy discussions, with [[Barack Obama]] and [[John Kerry]], to comedic conversations with comedians like [[Don Rickles]] and [[Steve Martin]], to verbal "smack-downs" of those in the media such as [[Jim Cramer]] and [[Chris Matthews]].<ref>''Comedy Central''. [http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/10/cnbcs-jim-cramer-responds-to-jon-stewarts-response-to-cnbcs-jim-cramer/ CNBC's Jim Cramer Responds to Jon Stewart's Response to CNBC's Jim Cramer], March 10, 2009.</ref> Stewart occasionally analyzes upcoming or newly released [[books]] with their respective [[author|authors]].<ref name=aboutdailyshow/><br />
<br />
== Trevor Noah ==<br />
A new comedian from South Africa, Trevor Noah, was hired to take Jon Stewart's place as host. He was found to have told some crude sexual jokes ridiculing women with reference to their being overweight or of a particular ethnicity. Noah responded to criticism by moralizing, beginning one statement with "To reduce [someone's] views to a handful of jokes that didn't land....," applying this description of this unfair practice to his own case. One man on Twitter completed his sentence, aptly remarking "...is your new job description, pal."<br />
<br />
== Audience ==<br />
A study found that "Nearly half of high school students say they also get news and information from entertainment programs like ''The Daily Show'' and others at least once a week."<ref>[http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=136169 Teens Tune In to News on the Internet], September 22, 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
== Correspondents ==<br />
The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news" stories. The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by [[mockery|mocking]] [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as the [[Second Amendment|Right to Bear Arms]] and the Pro-Life Movement, or [[Christianity]].<ref> Ada Calhoun. [http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/08/28/daily-show-billboard-mocks-republicans/ 'Daily Show' Billboard Mocks Republicans], August 28, 2008.</ref> One former segment in particular, "This Week In God", satirizes [[religious]] values while mocking [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref><ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> During the episode aired June 27, 2007, [[Lewis Black]] compared Conservapedia's "[[Homosexuality]]" article to [[Wikipedia]]'s, sarcastically describing it as "way more interesting," mainly because Conservapedia's article described it far more graphically. In their coverage of the [[United States Presidential Election, 2008|2008 U.S. presidential election]], most of the guests have been liberal, such as former president [[Bill Clinton]], future first lady [[Michelle Obama]] and former [[British]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]].<br />
<br />
When Stewart interviews his correspondents about an issue taking place at a certain place, it is often obviously done in the studio with props such as fake animals. The setting is also sometimes surreal, such as in the future.<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}<br />
[[category:Television Shows]]<br />
[[Category:Worst Liberal TV Shows]]<br />
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]<br />
[[Category : Hollywood Values]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Daily_Show&diff=1185626The Daily Show2015-12-06T17:25:35Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''The Daily Show''''' (its current incarnation is called '''''The Daily Show with Trevor Noah''''') is a [[satire|satirical]] fake news program first aired in 1996 which airs on cable network [[Comedy Central]]. The show's news team presents, "news like you've never seen it before -- unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or expensive graphics."<ref name=aboutdailyshow>''Comedy Central's The Daily Show''. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/about About the show]</ref> ''The Daily Show'' was created by Lizz Winstead and Madeleine Smithberg in 1996, hosted by Craig Kilborn until 1999 when [[Jon Stewart]] took over the anchor's chair.<ref name=aboutdailyshow/> The show has been recognized with a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy]]s.<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref><ref name=aboutdailyshow/><br />
<br />
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, and then Jon Stewart hosted the show until 2015 when he retired to become a producer for [[Stephen Colbert]]'s late night endeavor on CBS. South African born "comedian" Trevor Noah currently hosts the program.<br />
<br />
== Jon Stewart on ''The Daily Show'' ==<br />
Jon Stewart, a [[liberal]], is currently the host of ''The Daily Show''. In the past he often satirized [[George W. Bush]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], Congress, and American foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/ Jon Stewart Mocks Bush’s Claims on Diplomacy], July 11, 2006.</ref> Stewart will display video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which Republicans and other conservative politicians are made to look silly, using clips which are often edited or taken out of context so that they appear to be contradicting themselves. The sound bites of clips are typically edited to make Senate speeches appear ridiculous. However, due to Stewart's political values, he has typically provided an easy ride to President [[Obama]] and most other liberals.<br />
<br />
Jon's interviews have ranged from semi-serious policy discussions, with [[Barack Obama]] and [[John Kerry]], to comedic conversations with comedians like [[Don Rickles]] and [[Steve Martin]], to verbal "smack-downs" of those in the media such as [[Jim Cramer]] and [[Chris Matthews]].<ref>''Comedy Central''. [http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/10/cnbcs-jim-cramer-responds-to-jon-stewarts-response-to-cnbcs-jim-cramer/ CNBC's Jim Cramer Responds to Jon Stewart's Response to CNBC's Jim Cramer], March 10, 2009.</ref> Stewart occasionally analyzes upcoming or newly released [[books]] with their respective [[author|authors]].<ref name=aboutdailyshow/><br />
<br />
== Trevor Noah ==<br />
A new comedian from South Africa, Trevor Noah, was hired to take Jon Stewart's place as host. He was found to have told some crude sexual jokes ridiculing women with reference to their being overweight or of a particular ethnicity. Noah responded to criticism by moralizing, beginning one statement with "To reduce [someone's] views to a handful of jokes that didn't land....," applying this description of this unfair practice to his own case. One man on Twitter completed his sentence, aptly remarking "...is your new job description, pal."<br />
<br />
== Audience ==<br />
A study found that "Nearly half of high school students say they also get news and information from entertainment programs like ''The Daily Show'' and others at least once a week."<ref>[http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=136169 Teens Tune In to News on the Internet], September 22, 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
== Correspondents ==<br />
The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news" stories. The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by [[mockery|mocking]] [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as the [[Second Amendment|Right to Bear Arms]] and the Pro-Life Movement, or [[Christianity]].<ref> Ada Calhoun. [http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/08/28/daily-show-billboard-mocks-republicans/ 'Daily Show' Billboard Mocks Republicans], August 28, 2008.</ref> One former segment in particular, "This Week In God", satirizes [[religious]] values while mocking [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref><ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> During the episode aired June 27, 2007, [[Lewis Black]] compared Conservapedia's "[[Homosexuality]]" article to [[Wikipedia]]'s, sarcastically describing it as "way more interesting," mainly because Conservapedia's article described it far more graphically. In their coverage of the [[United States Presidential Election, 2008|2008 U.S. presidential election]], most of the guests have been liberal, such as former president [[Bill Clinton]], future first lady [[Michelle Obama]] and former [[British]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]].<br />
<br />
When Stewart interviews his correspondents about an issue taking place at a certain place, it is often obviously done in the studio with props such as fake animals. The setting is also sometimes surreal, such as in the future.<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}<br />
[[category:Television Shows]]<br />
[[Category:Worst Liberal TV Shows]]<br />
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]<br />
[[Category : Hollywood Values]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MS_NOW&diff=1185625MS NOW2015-12-06T17:19:57Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:April 2nd MSNBC.png|right]]<br />
'''MSNBC''' (stylized '''msnbc''') is a [[liberal propaganda]] 24-hour cable "news" channel and website aligned with the [[Democrat]] party. Jointly owned by [[Comcast]] and [[General Electric]], MSNBC is considered by many to be one of the most liberal cable news channels of all the [[mainstream media]]. For years, MSNBC trailed [[Fox News]] and [[CNN]] in the ratings. However, it began beating CNN after the ratings for that network began to freefall.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/business/media/cnn-ratings-decline-stirs-worries.html</ref> In 2014 CNN beat MSNBC. <ref>http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/</ref> MSNBC typically garners ratings that are just one-third those of the [[Fox News Channel]]. Some consider it to be the liberal counterpart to the conservative Fox News. In 2012, [[Microsoft]] fully divested itself from MSNBC resulting in a the creation of NBC news and NBCnews.com. <ref> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/msnbc-website-renamed-nbcnews-com-after-microsoft-split.html </ref> It is possible Microsoft divested due to MSNBC's [[liberal hypocrisy]] since they opined that "we wanted to show different perspectives." The "Lean Forward" campaign MSNBC announced blatantly confirmed what was already assumed in that the network has a strong liberal bias.<br />
<br />
The ''Daily Caller'' observed that MSNBC "might be trying a little too hard to push" its agenda ("MSNBC duped: Network runs satirical fake news"), and that wasn't the first time.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/05/msnbc-duped-network-runs-satirical-fake-news-from-daily-kos-as-a-real-story/</ref><br />
<br />
The MSNBC channel was started in 1996 as a joint venture between [[Microsoft]] and [[NBC]]. On December 23, 2005, ending a partnership that had soured long before, Microsoft and NBC announced that they would dissolve their joint ownership of the cable news channel, with NBC taking control. NBC completed a deal to assume majority control of the channel, with an 82% stake.<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30610F93E540C778EDDAB0994DD404482]</ref> The joint venture with Microsoft has come to an end.<ref>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/microsoft-nbc-dissolve-msnbccom-joint-venture/article4418455/</ref><br />
<br />
On January 28, 2011 Comcast, America's largest cable operator, purchased NBC Universal, which includes MSNBC, from former parent company General Electric. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/business/media/01deal.html New York Times; With Deal, G.E. Clears Path to Sale of NBC]</ref> <ref>[http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101028/ARTICLE/10281045/2055/NEWS?p=2&tc=pg Sarasota Herald-Tribune; Corporate Report]</ref><ref> http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/done-deal-fcc-department-of-justice-approve-comcast-nbc-universal-acquisition_b48942 </ref> Comcast acquired a 51-percent stake in NBC Universal, creating a $30-billion business that would include broadcast, cable networks, movie studios and theme parks. <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110118/bs_nm/us_nbc_comcast_13 </ref> Some liberals fear that Comcast might turn into a more conservative outlet. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/09/socialist-senator-wants-comcast-nbc-deal-blocked-due-olbermanns-suspe</ref> <ref>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/6/145630/235</ref> Some critics and supporters of [[Keith Olbermann]] blame Comcast for his firing from MSNBC. In addition, on July 2012, Microsoft also dropped MSNBC from its ownership, although it was still allowed to retain the name.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/microsoft-nbc-news-dissolve-msnbc-joint-venture_n_1675071.html</ref><br />
<br />
MSNBC is blatantly [[Communist]]. One of their anchors, [[Melissa Harris-Perry]], was featured in an MSNBC promotional video explaining that children "belong to whole communities" instead of their parents. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/09/critics-slam-msnbc-hosts-claim-that-kids-belong-to-community-not-parents/</ref> The promo is part of the Marxist "Forward" (MSNBC refers to it as "Lean Forward") campaign that has been going on since the late 19th century. <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/30/new-obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/</ref><br />
<br />
MSNBC adopted the slogan "lean forward" which appears onscreen, which proves that the network decided to stop hiding their blatant liberal and communist bias from viewers. <br />
<br />
== State run ==<br />
Publicly, the channel claims to be a non-biased, journalist driven news network. In reality, they are Democrat-aligned to the point that they are perceived as the press Secretary for the [[Obama Administration]]. On several occasions, Obama Administration officials have stated their public support for MSNBC. <br />
<br />
Opinion-driven news is common and a successful formula at Fox News. MSNBC opinion news includes attacking Republicans relentlessly (and with no factual basis) and promoting or whitewashing Democrat politicians. Their remarks are so outlandish, choke-full of proven lies and mean spirited that their TV hosts often get suspended from the air.<br />
<br />
MSNBC recently canceled some shows including the longtime ''Ed Show'' featuring Ed Schultz to favor "hard news" and "journalism" but it is a PR move as the network still features a heavy leftist slant.<br />
== Low ratings ==<br />
The MSNBC network has perennially had very low ratings. In 2002, the network was regularly beaten in the ratings by [[CNN Headline News]]. The CEO of Microsoft once even admitted that he wouldn't have started MSNBC knowing what he knew later.<ref>http://news.com.com/2100-1023-268073.html</ref> In June of 2006, [[CNN]] co-founder Reese Schoenfeld told journalist Don Kaplan that "Everybody compares MSNBC to Fox and CNN - when its real competition is Headline News". Schoenfeld pointed out that the ratings for MSNBC and Headline News are roughly the same, about 300,000 viewers on average and that "by comparison, Fox and CNN regularly average three or four times as many viewers." Kaplan even joked that "the running joke in TV news is Fox and CNN are news channels with websites, but MSNBC is a website with a cable channel".<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5891</ref><br />
<br />
Shock jock Don Imus's radio show ''Imus in the Morning'' was simulcast on MSNBC for over ten years. During this time, the program become well-known for displaying offensive commentary. However, MSNBC continued to support the show. In April of 2007, the network sparked outrage when during a broadcast of ''Imus in the Morning'', Don Imus and another MSNBC staff member made remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, considered to be both racist and sexist. Initially, MSNBC refused to cancel the show. After sponsors started withdrawing their advertisements from the show, MSNBC canceled the simulcast of ''Imus in the Morning''.<br />
<br />
== Liberal bias ==<br />
MSNBC has been criticized regarding the channel's [[liberal]] slant. The media watchdog group the Media Research Center<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp About Media Research Center] www.mediaresearch.org</ref> has cited MSNBC shows by [[Keith Olbermann]], [[Dan Abrams]] and [[Chris Matthews]] in its criticism of the network's biased reporting. Among the networks daily lineup, liberals include Matthews, [[Rachel Maddow]], [[Melissa Harris-Perry]], [[Lawrence O'Donnell]], and [[Chris Hayes]]. [[Joe Scarborough]], a liberal-leaning RINO Republican who was a member of the United States House of Representatives from Florida, is purported to be the sole conservative voice with a show on the network. Having several liberals and one RINO is clearly not balanced.<br />
<br />
Olbermann has denounced President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] and the [[Republican Party]], calling the latter a "terrorist organization". He has called on President Bush and Vice President [[Dick Cheney|Cheney]] to resign.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/</ref> <br />
Olbermann has conducted post-debate interviews of Republican presidential candidates and led live coverage of presidential primaries. In the February 2008 issue of ''Men's Journal'' magazine, a senior executive at MSNBC stated that Olbermann "runs MSNBC" and that "because of his success, he's in charge" of the network.<ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/olbermann_talks_office_politics_other_politics_74648.asp</ref> Olbermann has since left the network and returned to sports journalism at [[ESPN]]<br />
<br />
The [[left-wing]] advocacy group Media Matters for America<ref> [http://mediamatters.org/ Media Matters for America homepage] www.mediamatters.org</ref> has criticized the MSNBC's commitment to promoting a left-wing agenda since the channel has had shows hosted by [[Libertarian|left-libertarian]] [[Tucker Carlson]] and former moderate [[Republican]] Congressman [[Joe Scarborough]]. Ironically, on August 16, 2007 Scarborough revealed an incident in which people in the MSNBC newsroom ceaselessly booed [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush|Bush]] during a State of the Union address.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14899/print</ref><br />
[[Image:Msnbc dem.jpg|right|150px]]<br />
In the past, MSNBC shows have featured [[Mitch Albom]], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Phil Donahue]], [[Bill Moyers]], [[Maury Povich]], and [[Michael Savage]], among others. That varied programming was gradually reduced as MSNBC veered more [[leftist]] in its point-of-view. Among MSNBC's 2008 lineup, [[Patrick Buchanan]] was perhaps the most conservative voice.<br />
<br />
In 2003, in an apparent effort to appear more balanced, MSNBC fired talk-show host Phil Donahue. An internal memo read, in part, "Donahue represents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time, our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." <ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004</ref><br />
<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/24/1446244</ref><br />
<ref>http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html</ref><br />
<br />
On November 5, 2007, the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported that the cable news channel was in serious discussions with [[Rosie O'Donnell]] to have a prime-time show on the network. Under one scenario, O'Donnell would be given the 9 p.m. slot where she would compete with ''Larry King Live'' on [[CNN]] and ''Hannity & Colmes'' on the [[Fox News Channel]]. Her show would replace ''Live with Dan Abrams'', a low-rated program that only recently replaced ''Scarborough Country''.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05cnd-msnbc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref> The deal later fell through as O'Donnell leaked information about the agreement without MSNBC's permission.<br />
<br />
Later in November of 2007, the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, flat out admitted that the network has a left-wing liberal bias. In a ''New York Times'' article, he said that "it happened naturally" and that "there is a Go for it" mentality when it comes to pushing the liberal agenda among the MSNBC staff.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin</ref><br />
<br />
Continuing its offensive against the [[Bush administration]] and its reposition as a left-wing "news" outlet, in December of 2007, the network ran a series titled ''Bush League Justice'' with the explicit purpose of attacking the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Justice Department]] under the presidency of [[George W. Bush]].<br />
<br />
In October 2010, MSNBC has publicly acknowleged its liberalism in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward," <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39507182/ns/business-media_biz/</ref> <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/media/05adco.html?_r=1</ref> <ref>http://theweek.com/article/index/207856/msnbcs-new-slogan-what-does-it-even-mean</ref> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkinYM4EPy0</ref> following several years in which many observers noted a leftward shift in the channel's programming <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/study-nbc-news-doesnt-fol_n_139162.html</ref> <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008_pf.html</ref> <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=print</ref>. As a result, NBC Universal and Microsoft is considering changing the name of the less partisan msnbc.com, a separate news company, to prevent confusion with the liberal TV network, MSNBC <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/media/07msnbc.html</ref>. Some of the NBC News correspondents and producers, who attempt to be straightforward reporters, say they are embarrassed to be associated with the liberal cable outlet and fear being “tainted” by association with it <ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39332</ref>. The situation became more apparent when NBC News decided to keep Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw away from MSNBC during the November 2, 2010 midterm election coverage <ref>http://mediaconfidential.blogspot.com/2010/10/nbc-news-separates-itself-from-partisan.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
In July 2013, former MSNBC senior producer Jeff Cohen attacked MSNBC for being what he called the “official network of the [[Obama]] White House.” <ref> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/08/former-producer-rips-msnbc-as-obamas-official-network</ref><br />
<br />
==The MSNBC – White House connection==<br />
During coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill, Democrat party apparatchik Mika Brzezinski, who is also an anchor of the MSNBC show ''Morning Joe'', worked with the White House to distribute propaganda falsely claiming that Obama was doing an effective job managing the problem. Brzezinski, who is the daughter of NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski from the failed Carter administration, admitted on the air that "I have a file that I've been working on with the White House."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/06/21/mika-admits-im-working-white-house-oil-spill-talking-points#ixzz2PpmYB7O3</ref><br />
<br />
==The MSNBC – Media Matters connection==<br />
[[Media Matters for America]] is a very popular source of information within MSNBC’s prime time lineup. Some might argue [[MSNBC]] is a defacto mouth piece for the organization..<ref>[http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/07/12/media-matters-propaganda-watch-the-tax-exempt-research-department-of-msnbc-martin-bashir-edition/ Media Matters Propaganda Watch: The Tax-Exempt Research Department of MSNBC, Martin Bashir Edition]</ref> In prime time alone, since 2005 Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on the network nearly 200 times. Media Matters has been particularly popular with MSNBC’s producers during the last 2 years.<br />
Below are some interesting tid bits about Media Matters and its growing relationship with MSNBC’s prime time programming: <br />
<br />
* 197 guest appearances and/or on-air mentions on MSNBC’s prime time since January 2005 <br />
* Of the roughly 390 broadcast evenings on MSNBC since July 2010, Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on air 26% of the possible broadcast evenings (1 out of every 4 days).<br />
* In 2011, on average, a Media Matters representative appeared on MSNBC at least once per week <br />
* [[Eric Boehlert]] has been the most popular Media Matters representative on MSNBC, accounting for 43% of all Media Matters appearances on the cable network<br />
* [[The Ed Show]] is the most popular show for Media Matters representatives, accounting for 72 Media Matters guest appearances since 2009<ref>[http://www.nexis.com Search and analysis on MSNBC's primetime transcripts via Nexis.com]</ref><br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[NBC]]<br />
* [[Liberal media]]<br />
* [[Keith Olbermann]]<br />
* [[Chris Matthews]]<br />
* [[Pat Buchanan]]<br />
* [[Rachel Maddow]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
* [http://msnbc.msn.com Official Site] <br />
* [http://www.setstudio.com/pages/msnbc/ Photos of the MSNBC studio]<br />
* [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/11/16/msnbc-president-admits-lineup-tilts-leftward MSNBC President Admits: Lineup Tilts Leftward]<br />
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Media]]<br />
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal Media]]<br />
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]<br />
[[Category:Microsoft]]<br />
[[Category:Censorship]]<br />
[[Category:Media]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]<br />
[[Category:New York]]<br />
[[Category:New York City]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&diff=1185623Glenn Beck2015-12-06T17:14:48Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Glenn Beck 2010.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Glenn Beck at [[CPAC]]. Photograph by Gage Skidmore.]]<br />
'''Glenn Edward Lee Beck''' is a talk-radio host and former television anchor who was employed by [[Fox News]], and who announced his departure from the [[Republican Party]] on March 18, 2015.<ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tv_fox_beck_cnn/2008/10/16/141295.html Glenn Beck Leaving CNN for Fox News] AP, October 16, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/entertainment/et-foxnews6 Fox News' Glenn Beck strikes ratings gold by challenging Barack Obama] p.3 </ref> <br />
His radio show, ''The Glenn Beck Program'', is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the [[United States]]. His television show, ''Glenn Beck'', appeared daily on [[CNN]] Headline News, before he switched to Fox News. The Glenn Beck Program ceased airing in 2010, as Beck left to focus on Mercury Radio Arts, and his Blaze (formerly GBTV) properties. A version of his Fox show airs on the network. <br />
<br />
Though promoted to a conservative audience, Glenn Beck has become another puppet for the [[homosexual agenda]] as illustrated by his incoherent rant against [[Ben Carson]] for observing that [[homosexuality]] is a choice.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/07/beck-claims-carson-presidential-campaign-over-on-dumbest-thing-ever-gay-remarks/</ref> Dr. Carson, to his credit, did not back away from the logical truth of his statement.<br />
<br />
Beck is the author of ten books, and four of them were #1 New York Times Bestsellers. Books include: ''The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland'' ''An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,'' ''The Christmas Sweater,'' ''Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government,'' ''Arguing With Idiots,'' ''Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure'', and ''Being George Washington''.<br />
<br />
Beck is currently the host of a paid-subscription online network, the Blaze (formerly GBTV) which has several programs including a one-hour version of his Fox News show.<br />
<br />
== Earnings and Book Deal ==<br />
[http://www.businessinsider.com BusinessInsider.com] estimated Beck will make $18 million in 2009<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-empire-of-glenn-beck-slideshow-2009-4 Glenn Beck's Cash Machine]</ref> Now with the signing of his new book deal with [[Simon & Schuster]], he will be given a larger share in the profits of each book, as well as increased creative control.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124138941245781353.html Wall St. Journal; New Deal Gives Beck Share in Book Profits]</ref><br />
<br />
In addition to several volumes of political commentary, Beck has also written a novel, [[The Overton Window]], published in 2010.<br />
<br />
==Controversies==<br />
Liberal activism groups attempted to silence Beck by pushing his advertisers to abandon his program, after he alleged that [[Barack Obama]] is [[racism|racist]] against white people, and that he [[hate|hates]] white culture. This prompted "RedState" to defend Beck and call for a boycott of the advertisers on his show who were hoodwinked into boycotting it by the liberal elite.<br />
<br />
The publicity over the attempts on Beck's popularity achieved a result that the liberals cannot have intended: Beck was featured on the cover of [[Time magazine]], and in a final insult to liberal pride; he is depicted sticking his tongue out at the reader. Beck, however, was less than pleased with the Time cover: He stated that ''Time'' ought to have featured the large crowds attending the [[September 12 March on Washington]] and not him on its cover. Beck, however, put his own picture on his book about George Washington, "George Washington : the indispensable man, as you've never seen him" (2011).<br />
<br />
On August 28th, 2010, Glenn Beck hosted his Restoring Honor to America rally at the [[Lincoln Memorial]]. [[Google]] attempted to mislead attendees by changing its location in ''Google Maps'' to the Roosevelt Memorial days before the rally.<br />
<br />
On June 27th, 2011, Glen Beck and his wife were attacked by liberal hooligans in New York City's Bryant Park. <ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/new_yorkers_turned_on_glenn_be.html]</ref><br />
<br />
== Known favorite associations ==<br />
Beck frequently had Judge [[Andrew Napolitano]] as a guest on his Fox program. Judge Napolitano even hosted the show himself when Beck was on assignment.<br />
<br />
== 9/12 Project ==<br />
In 2009, Beck launched the 9/12 project, a project aimed at recovering America's Christian founding values, closely allied with the [[Tea Party Movement]]. On September 12, 2009 (9/12), a massive Taxpayer March on Washington was accomplished, with hundreds of thousands of attendees, and was roundly censored by the [[liberal media]].<br />
<br />
===The Project's 9 Principles, 12 Values===<br />
<br />
The 9 Principles:<br />
# America Is Good.<br />
# I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life. <br />
# I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.<br />
# The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.<br />
# If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.<br />
# I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.<br />
# I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.<br />
# It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.<br />
# The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.<br />
<br />
The 12 Values: <br />
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude<br />
<br />
==June 2011==<br />
June 30th was Glenn Beck's last show on Fox News, breaking all records for his timeslot. He is investing his future in an internet program with a different format. Beck's show on Fox was replaced by "The Five". <br />
<br />
Between the time he left Fox and The Five started, Beck reruns were played. To add to liberal's disgust, Beck reruns handily won the ratings time slot over CNN and MSNBC. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-reruns-beat-cnn-msnbc/ ONE WEEK AFTER LEAVING FOX NEWS, BECK RE-RUNS STILL WINNING TIME SLOT, The Blaze, July 9, 2011]</ref><br />
<br />
==Restoring Love==<br />
In July 2012, Beck held a 3 day event in Texas culminating at the Cowboys stadium in Dallas. It was a non-political conference attended by 65,000 fans. Many high profile conservatives were there including [[Michele Bachmann]] and [[Rick Santorum]]. The event focused on American exceptionalism, love, faith, and community. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/65000-gather-for-glenn-becks-restoring-love-conference-video/ 65,000 Gather for Glenn Beck’s Restoring Love Conference, Gateway Pundit, July 29, 2012]</ref><br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Restoring Honor Rally]]<br />
* [[Fox News]]<br />
* [[Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure]]<br />
* [[The Overton Window]]<br />
<br />
==External References==<br />
* [http://www.theblaze.com TheBlaze]<br />
* [http://www.the912project.com/ 9/12 Project website]<br />
* [http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml Glenn Beck's personal site]<br />
* [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov09/0,4670,APonTVPostElection,00.html Glenn Beck jumps from CNN to Fox News]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
{{DEFAULTSORT: Beck, Glenn}}<br />
[[Category: Broadcasters]]<br />
[[Category: Television]]<br />
[[Category: Conservative Commentators]]<br />
[[Category: Media personalities ]]<br />
[[Category: Conservatives]]<br />
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]<br />
[[Category:Catholics]]<br />
[[Category:American Gun Rights Advocates]]<br />
[[Category:Oath Keepers]]<br />
[[Category:Patriots]]<br />
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]<br />
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]<br />
[[Category : Conservative Authors]]<br />
<br />
{{Conservatism}}</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&diff=1185622Glenn Beck2015-12-06T17:14:20Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Glenn Beck 2010.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Glenn Beck at [[CPAC]]. Photograph by Gage Skidmore.]]<br />
'''Glenn Edward Lee Beck''' is a talk-radio host and former television anchor who was employed by [[Fox News]], and who announced his departure from the [[Republican Party]] on March 18, 2015.<ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tv_fox_beck_cnn/2008/10/16/141295.html Glenn Beck Leaving CNN for Fox News] AP, October 16, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/entertainment/et-foxnews6 Fox News' Glenn Beck strikes ratings gold by challenging Barack Obama] p.3 </ref> <br />
His radio show, ''The Glenn Beck Program'', is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the [[United States]]. His television show, ''Glenn Beck'', appeared daily on [[CNN]] Headline News, before he switched to Fox News. The Glenn Beck Program ceased airing in 2010, as Beck left to focus on Mercury Radio Arts, and his Blaze (formerly GBTV) properties. A version of his Fox show airs on the network. <br />
<br />
Though promoted to a conservative audience, Glenn Beck has become another puppet for the [[homosexual agenda]] as illustrated by his incoherent rant against [[Ben Carson]] for observing that [[homosexuality]] is a choice.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/07/beck-claims-carson-presidential-campaign-over-on-dumbest-thing-ever-gay-remarks/</ref> Dr. Carson, to his credit, did not back away from the logical truth of his statement.<br />
<br />
Beck is the author of ten books, and four of them were #1 New York Times Bestsellers. Books include: ''The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland'' ''An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,'' ''The Christmas Sweater,'' ''Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government,'' ''Arguing With Idiots,'' ''Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure'', and ''Being George Washington''.<br />
<br />
Beck is currently the host of a paid-subscription online network, the Blaze (formerly GBTV) which has several programs including a two-hour version of his Fox News show.<br />
<br />
== Earnings and Book Deal ==<br />
[http://www.businessinsider.com BusinessInsider.com] estimated Beck will make $18 million in 2009<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-empire-of-glenn-beck-slideshow-2009-4 Glenn Beck's Cash Machine]</ref> Now with the signing of his new book deal with [[Simon & Schuster]], he will be given a larger share in the profits of each book, as well as increased creative control.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124138941245781353.html Wall St. Journal; New Deal Gives Beck Share in Book Profits]</ref><br />
<br />
In addition to several volumes of political commentary, Beck has also written a novel, [[The Overton Window]], published in 2010.<br />
<br />
==Controversies==<br />
Liberal activism groups attempted to silence Beck by pushing his advertisers to abandon his program, after he alleged that [[Barack Obama]] is [[racism|racist]] against white people, and that he [[hate|hates]] white culture. This prompted "RedState" to defend Beck and call for a boycott of the advertisers on his show who were hoodwinked into boycotting it by the liberal elite.<br />
<br />
The publicity over the attempts on Beck's popularity achieved a result that the liberals cannot have intended: Beck was featured on the cover of [[Time magazine]], and in a final insult to liberal pride; he is depicted sticking his tongue out at the reader. Beck, however, was less than pleased with the Time cover: He stated that ''Time'' ought to have featured the large crowds attending the [[September 12 March on Washington]] and not him on its cover. Beck, however, put his own picture on his book about George Washington, "George Washington : the indispensable man, as you've never seen him" (2011).<br />
<br />
On August 28th, 2010, Glenn Beck hosted his Restoring Honor to America rally at the [[Lincoln Memorial]]. [[Google]] attempted to mislead attendees by changing its location in ''Google Maps'' to the Roosevelt Memorial days before the rally.<br />
<br />
On June 27th, 2011, Glen Beck and his wife were attacked by liberal hooligans in New York City's Bryant Park. <ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/new_yorkers_turned_on_glenn_be.html]</ref><br />
<br />
== Known favorite associations ==<br />
Beck frequently had Judge [[Andrew Napolitano]] as a guest on his Fox program. Judge Napolitano even hosted the show himself when Beck was on assignment.<br />
<br />
== 9/12 Project ==<br />
In 2009, Beck launched the 9/12 project, a project aimed at recovering America's Christian founding values, closely allied with the [[Tea Party Movement]]. On September 12, 2009 (9/12), a massive Taxpayer March on Washington was accomplished, with hundreds of thousands of attendees, and was roundly censored by the [[liberal media]].<br />
<br />
===The Project's 9 Principles, 12 Values===<br />
<br />
The 9 Principles:<br />
# America Is Good.<br />
# I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life. <br />
# I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.<br />
# The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.<br />
# If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.<br />
# I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.<br />
# I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.<br />
# It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.<br />
# The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.<br />
<br />
The 12 Values: <br />
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude<br />
<br />
==June 2011==<br />
June 30th was Glenn Beck's last show on Fox News, breaking all records for his timeslot. He is investing his future in an internet program with a different format. Beck's show on Fox was replaced by "The Five". <br />
<br />
Between the time he left Fox and The Five started, Beck reruns were played. To add to liberal's disgust, Beck reruns handily won the ratings time slot over CNN and MSNBC. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-reruns-beat-cnn-msnbc/ ONE WEEK AFTER LEAVING FOX NEWS, BECK RE-RUNS STILL WINNING TIME SLOT, The Blaze, July 9, 2011]</ref><br />
<br />
==Restoring Love==<br />
In July 2012, Beck held a 3 day event in Texas culminating at the Cowboys stadium in Dallas. It was a non-political conference attended by 65,000 fans. Many high profile conservatives were there including [[Michele Bachmann]] and [[Rick Santorum]]. The event focused on American exceptionalism, love, faith, and community. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/65000-gather-for-glenn-becks-restoring-love-conference-video/ 65,000 Gather for Glenn Beck’s Restoring Love Conference, Gateway Pundit, July 29, 2012]</ref><br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Restoring Honor Rally]]<br />
* [[Fox News]]<br />
* [[Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure]]<br />
* [[The Overton Window]]<br />
<br />
==External References==<br />
* [http://www.theblaze.com TheBlaze]<br />
* [http://www.the912project.com/ 9/12 Project website]<br />
* [http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml Glenn Beck's personal site]<br />
* [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov09/0,4670,APonTVPostElection,00.html Glenn Beck jumps from CNN to Fox News]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
{{DEFAULTSORT: Beck, Glenn}}<br />
[[Category: Broadcasters]]<br />
[[Category: Television]]<br />
[[Category: Conservative Commentators]]<br />
[[Category: Media personalities ]]<br />
[[Category: Conservatives]]<br />
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]<br />
[[Category:Catholics]]<br />
[[Category:American Gun Rights Advocates]]<br />
[[Category:Oath Keepers]]<br />
[[Category:Patriots]]<br />
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]<br />
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]<br />
[[Category : Conservative Authors]]<br />
<br />
{{Conservatism}}</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joe_Scarborough&diff=1185620Joe Scarborough2015-12-06T17:12:39Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Officeholder<br />
|name=Joe Scarborough<br />
|image=Joe_Scarborough.jpg<br />
|party=[[Republican]]<br />
|spouse=Melanie Hinton (div.)<br/>Susan Waren<br />
|religion=Baptist<br />
|offices=<br />
{{Officeholder/representative<br />
|state=Florida<br />
|district=1st<br />
|terms=January 3, 1995 – September 5, 2001<br />
|preceded=Earl Hutto<br />
|former=n<br />
|succeeded=Jeff Miller<br />
}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Charles Joseph "Joe" Scarborough''' (born April 9, 1963) served as a [[Republican]] U.S. [[Representative]] from [[Florida]]'s 1st congressional district from 1995 through 2001, before resigning to spend more time with his family. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-25-scarborough.htm</ref> He went on to host [[MSNBC]]’s Morning Joe and The Joe Scarborough Show on ABC Radio Network. Previously he hosted "Scarborough Country" in primetime on MSNBC. Since being on MSNBC, he has moved to the left on most issues including bashing Republicans and agreeing with most MSNBC liberal analysts/anchors. He claims to be a conservative on the show, often touting his supposed credentials within the GOP and the ACU rating he received while in Congress before he worked for MSNBC. He calls himself a conservative but frequently bashes conservative principles and people. His stance on gun control shifted drastically and now Scarborough is a firm supporter of new laws restricting gun ownership. To be fair, he is the most conservative host and most conservative MSNBC commentator. Nonetheless, he is at best a centrist and at worst a center-left host but still not to the extreme left of other hosts such as [[Al Sharpton]]. He did, however, seem pleased when it was announced that liberals like Ed Schultz left the network.<br />
<br />
Joe Scarborough was elected during [[Newt Gingrich]]'s 1994 Republican Revolution, and served on the Judiciary Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Like most freshman Republicans in the 104th Congress, Scarborough was a reliable [[conservative]], earning a 95% rating from the [[American Conservative Union]]. <ref>http://www.acuratings.org/ratingsarchive/2000/2000House.htm</ref> After leaving Congress he joined the law firm of Beggs and Lane. In recent years Scarborough has been critical of conservative leaders such as [[Rush Limbaugh]], [[Karl Rove]], and [[Glenn Beck]]. "We have not been conservative as a party, we've been radical."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/05/03/scarborough-todays-gop-not-too-conservative-its-too-radical</ref> His 2009 book ''The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise'', which was highly promoted on left-leaning media outlets, was unsuccessful in book sales. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/20/joe-scarborough-conservative-bashing-book-flops-bigtime</ref><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.joescarborough.com/ Official Website]<br />
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Joe_Scarborough.htm On the Issues]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Scarborough, Joe}}<br />
[[Category:Former United States Representatives]]<br />
[[Category:Republican Party]]<br />
[[Category:Broadcasters]]<br />
[[Category:Florida]]<br />
[[Category:RINOs]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Press&diff=1185619Bill Press2015-12-06T17:11:06Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''William "Bill" Press''' (b. April 8, 1940) is a liberal United States radio host who hosts ''Full Court Press'' on [[talk radio]] and on obscure liberal network Free Speech TV, formerly simulcasted on [[Current TV]]. He was chair of the California Democratic Party from 1993 to 1996. He was also a personality featured on the [[CNN]] program ''[[Crossfire]]'' in its first iteration.<br />
[[Category:Democrats]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:Current TV]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Press&diff=1185618Bill Press2015-12-06T17:10:42Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''William "Bill" Press''' (b. April 8, 1940) is a liberal United States radio hosts who hosts ''Full Court Press'' on [[talk radio]] and on obscure liberal network Free Speech TV, formerly simulcasted on [[Current TV]]. He was chair of the California Democratic Party from 1993 to 1996. He was also a personality featured on the [[CNN]] program ''[[Crossfire]]'' in its first iteration.<br />
[[Category:Democrats]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:Current TV]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Comedy_Central&diff=1185617Comedy Central2015-12-06T17:04:53Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Comedy Central''' is a left-slanting cable and satellite television channel which draws a large portion of its viewership from adolescents, such as the average [[public school]] student (who watches more than three hours of television daily).<br />
<br />
Comedy Central features adult cartoons, including ''[[South Park]]'' (its flagship series) as well as dim-witted [[liberal]] programs including ''[[The Daily Show]]'' with [[Trevor Noah]] and ''The Nightly Show'' with [[Larry Wilmore]] that bases its entire premise on false race issues. The channel is based in the Upper West Side of [[Manhattan]].<br />
==Shows==<br />
*''[[The Daily Show]]'': A so-called [[parody]] news show with an extreme [[leftist]] point-of-view, hosted by [[Trevor Noah]]. The show was formerly hosted by [[Jon Stewart]] and before Stewart [[Craig Kilborn]].<br /><br />
*''The Nightly Show'': As a replacement for ''Colbert'' former ''Daily Show'' "correspondent" Larry Wilmore took his occasional segment on "race issues" and made it into an entire show that receives far fewer viewers than even Colbert did in the same 11:30 PM time slot.<br />
*''[[South Park]]'': A cartoon based around the lives of four foul-mouthed elementary school children in a [[Colorado]] mountain town, which pokes fun at pop-culture, traditional family values and politics.<br /> Has a [[libertarian]] stance and the creators [[Trey Parker]] and Matt Stone have all but confirmed their libertarian slant. Notably the only Comedy Central program without a completely leftist bias.<br />
===Former shows===<br />
''The Colbert Report'': A spin-off of ''The Daily Show'', hosted by [[Stephen Colbert]], who satirically portrays a conservative commentator, mocking conservatives and portraying them as buffoons, and inaccurately stating conservative values.<br /> The show was canceled in 2015 when Colbert made the move to late night on equally liberal network [[CBS]].<br />
==Hypocritical censorship==<br />
<br />
Comedy Central has been guilty of selective censorship, refusing to show an unoffensive clip featuring the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] in an episode of ''[[South Park]]''even though they had previously depicted him earlier in the run of the show. This is despite allowing ongoing obscenity and degradation of Christian beliefs in a number of its programs. This act of censorship was highly ironic, as it came at the end of a double episode dedicated to condemning [[Fox_Network|Fox]] for its refusal to depict Muhammad. <br />
<br />
[[Category: Liberal Media]]<br />
[[Category : Hollywood Values]]<br />
<br />
{{Liberalism}}</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185616Crossfire2015-12-06T16:52:37Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|120px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a [[debate]] program that aired on the liberal [[news]] network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, though Buchanan did leave the program to work for the [[Reagan]] Administration, and Carlson eventually left to host the short-lived show ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]].<br />
<br />
The liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-still-dont-understand-what-jon-stewart-was-trying-to-say-on-crossfire Carlson on the issue] </ref> Some analysts claim that Stewart's appearance caused the cancellation of the first iteration of the program. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/opinion/begala-stewart-blew-up-crossfire/ Begala himself saying such]</ref> The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program, and a desire to focus on more issue and breaking news-oriented programming, such as the ''Situation Room''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|120px|[[Conservative|"On the right,"]] S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back. The show was quietly canceled, and replaced with typical CNN news programming as before due to the divisive nature of the program despite the inclusion of the "Cease Fire" final segment of the program that encouraged debate participants to find common ground, a section that was absent from the first iteration of the program, and was created in response to public perception of the hostile and uncivil nature of this type of programming. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-crossfire-canceled-again/ Crossfire canceled again]</ref><br />
<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185615Crossfire2015-12-06T16:50:09Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|120px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a [[debate]] program that aired on the liberal [[news]] network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, though Buchanan did leave the program to work for the [[Reagan]] Administration, and Carlson eventually left to host the short-lived show ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]].<br />
<br />
The liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. <ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-still-dont-understand-what-jon-stewart-was-trying-to-say-on-crossfire/ Carlson on the issue] Some analysts claim that Stewart's appearance caused the cancellation of the first iteration of the program. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/opinion/begala-stewart-blew-up-crossfire/ Begala himself saying such] </ref> The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program, and a desire to focus on more issue and breaking news-oriented programming, such as the ''Situation Room''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|120px|[[Conservative|"On the right,"]] S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back. The show was quietly canceled, and replaced with typical CNN news programming as before due to the divisive nature of the program despite the inclusion of the "Cease Fire" final segment of the program that encouraged debate participants to find common ground, a section that was absent from the first iteration of the program, and was created in response to public perception of the hostile and uncivil nature of this type of programming. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-crossfire-canceled-again/ Crossfire canceled again] </ref><br />
<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185614Crossfire2015-12-06T16:49:37Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|120px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a [[debate]] program that aired on the liberal [[news]] network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, though Buchanan did leave the program to work for the [[Reagan]] Administration, and Carlson eventually left to host the short-lived show ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]].<br />
<br />
The liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. <ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-still-dont-understand-what-jon-stewart-was-trying-to-say-on-crossfire/ Carlson on the issue] Some analysts claim that Stewart's appearance caused the cancellation of the first iteration of the program. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/opinion/begala-stewart-blew-up-crossfire/ Begala himself saying such] The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program, and a desire to focus on more issue and breaking news-oriented programming, such as the ''Situation Room''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|120px|[[Conservative|"On the right,"]] S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back. The show was quietly canceled, and replaced with typical CNN news programming as before due to the divisive nature of the program despite the inclusion of the "Cease Fire" final segment of the program that encouraged debate participants to find common ground, a section that was absent from the first iteration of the program, and was created in response to public perception of the hostile and uncivil nature of this type of programming. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-crossfire-canceled-again/ Crossfire canceled again]<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185561Crossfire2015-12-06T04:02:18Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|120px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a [[debate]] program that aired on the liberal [[news]] network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, though Buchanan did leave the program to work for the [[Reagan]] Administration, and Carlson eventually left to host the short-lived show ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]].<br />
<br />
The liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. Some analysts claim that Stewart's appearance caused the cancellation of the first iteration of the program. The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program, and a desire to focus on more issue and breaking news-oriented programming, such as the ''Situation Room''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|120px|[[Conservative|"On the right,"]] S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back. The show was quietly canceled, and replaced with typical CNN news programming as before due to the divisive nature of the program despite the inclusion of the "Cease Fire" final segment of the program that encouraged debate participants to find common ground, a section that was absent from the first iteration of the program, and was created in response to public perception of the hostile and uncivil nature of this type of programming. <br />
<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Line_of_credit&diff=1185555Line of credit2015-12-06T03:07:19Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: brief article from red link</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''line of credit''' is a source of credit allotted to an individual, business, or government, by a financial institution, for a specific amount of money, and it can take such forms as [[overdraft]] protection, a personal loan, a credit card, or other [[revolving credit]]. The borrower is required to pay [[interest]] on the money borrowed, and may pay an unused line of credit fee and such lines of credit as a credit card may have an annual fee.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephanie_Cutter&diff=1185546Stephanie Cutter2015-12-06T02:26:59Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: Very brief article for linked page</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Stephanie Cutter''' (born October 22, 1968) is a liberal political consultant who helped the [[Obama]] reelection initiative and also assisted [[Michelle Obama]] as her chief of staff and worked on her Let's Move health initiative. She also represented the liberal side on the second iteration of the [[CNN]] program ''[[Crossfire]]''.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&diff=1185545Republican Party2015-12-06T02:19:04Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{AmericanPoliticalParty<br />
| party_name = Republican Party<br />
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)<br />
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]<br />
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]<br />
| headquarters = 310 K Street SE<br> [[Washington, D.C.]]<br>20003 <br />
| chairman = [[Reince Priebus]] <br />
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]] <br />
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]] <br />
| foundation = 1854<br />
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]]<br>[[Conservative|Conservatism]]<br>[[Classical Liberalism]]<br>[[Neoconservatism]]<br />
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]<br />
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]<br />
| international = [[International Democrat Union]] <br />
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)<br />
| footnotes =<br />
}}<br />
The '''Republican Party''' ('''R''') or informally the '''GOP''' (short for Grand Old Party), is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]].<br />
<br />
The Republican Party is the only major political party that is [[pro-life]]. The Republican Party is also pro-[[free enterprise]], pro-religious liberty, pro-[[Second Amendment]], and pro-[[traditional marriage]]. At its first national convention, in 1856, the Republican Party platform stated, "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery."<ref>http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, although Democrats today, who are always determined to undermine Republicans by making them look racist, claim the two parties have somehow "switched" since then. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) as well as the [[Fourth Party System]] or Progressive Era (1896-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]] (1932-1968), with the GOP only electing [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP. <br />
<br />
18 of the 28 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. The party's most recent candidate former [[Massachusetts]] Governor [[Mitt Romney]], together with his running mate Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]], lost the 2012 presidential election to Democrat incumbent [[Barack Obama]] and his Vice-President [[Joe Biden]].<br />
<br />
It is important to vote for someone who's more conservative on the issues rather than for a Republican due to the fact some Republicans are less conservative than typical Republicans (see: [[RINO]]). <br />
<br />
== Symbol ==<br />
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant.]]<br />
The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]], published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in some Midwestern states was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. The eagle still appears on Indiana ballots.<br />
<br />
A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.<br />
<br />
==Ideology==<br />
Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.<br />
<br />
Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."<br />
<br />
The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberating of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy, especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty. <br />
<br />
The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.<br />
<br />
In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased [[federal funding]] for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.<br />
<br />
In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref><br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
[[File:GOP-presidents.jpg|thumb|300px|GOP Presidents by Andy Thomas; clockwise from far right: Nixon, Ford, Lincoln, GHW Bush, Reagan, GW Bush, Eisenhower, Roosevelt]]<br />
The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 11 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].<br />
<br />
===Third Party System: 1854-1896===<br />
The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.<br />
<br />
====Issues: Slavery====<br />
Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref><br />
<br />
Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref> <br />
<br />
The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes. <br />
<br />
====Modernization====<br />
Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.<br />
<br />
====Ethnocultural voting====<br />
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref><br />
<br />
====Politics 1854-1860====<br />
[[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.<br />
{{See also|Third Party System}}<br />
<br />
====Civil War: 1861-1865====<br />
Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.<br />
<br />
====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====<br />
In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.<br />
<br />
Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence. <br />
<br />
Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964. <br />
<br />
In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134] <br />
<br />
Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)<br />
<br />
====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====<br />
The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888. <br />
<br />
As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.<br />
====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====<br />
<br />
From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavern keepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them. <br />
<br />
Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).<br />
Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.<br />
<br />
Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref> See Kleppner (1979)</ref><br />
<br />
===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===<br />
The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920. <br />
<br />
====McKinley and realignment====<br />
McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy. <br />
<br />
McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.<br />
<br />
====Roosevelt and Progressivism====<br />
[[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]]. <br />
<br />
Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals. <br />
<br />
Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908. <br />
<br />
====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====<br />
The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty. <br />
<br />
The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened. <br />
<br />
Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.<br />
<br />
====State and local politics====<br />
The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes. <br />
<br />
====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====<br />
The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds. <br />
<br />
The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans. <br />
<br />
The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].<br />
<br />
==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==<br />
Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) &ndash; combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide. <br />
<br />
Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan). <br />
<br />
[[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system. <br />
<br />
The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy. <br />
<br />
Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.<br />
<br />
====Strength of Parties 1977==== <br />
How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:<br />
<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
! Party <br />
! Republican<br />
! Democratic<br />
! Independent<br />
|-<br />
! Party ID (Gallup)<br />
| 22%<br />
| 47%<br />
| 31%<br />
|- <br />
! Congressmen<br />
| 181<br />
| 354<br />
| <br />
|- <br />
! House<br />
| 143<br />
| 292<br />
| <br />
|- <br />
! Senate<br />
| 38<br />
| 62<br />
| <br />
|- <br />
! % House popular vote nationally<br />
| 42%<br />
| 56%<br />
| 2%<br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the East<br />
| 41%<br />
| 57%<br />
| 2%<br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the South<br />
| 37%<br />
| 62%<br />
| 2%<br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the Midwest<br />
| 47%<br />
| 52%<br />
| 1%<br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the West<br />
| 43%<br />
| 55%<br />
| 2%<br />
|- <br />
! Governors<br />
| 12<br />
| 37<br />
| 1<br />
|- <br />
! rowspan=2 | State Legislators<br />
| 2,370<br />
| 5,128<br />
| 55<br />
|- <br />
| 31%<br />
| 68%<br />
| 1%<br />
|- <br />
! State legislature control<br />
| 18<br />
| 80<br />
| 1 * <br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the East<br />
| 5<br />
| 13<br />
| 0<br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the South<br />
| 0<br />
| 32<br />
| 0<br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the Midwest<br />
| 5<br />
| 17<br />
| 1 * <br />
|- <br />
| align=right | in the West<br />
| 8<br />
| 18<br />
| 0<br />
|- <br />
! States' one party control<br>of legislature and governorship<br />
| 1<br />
| 29<br />
| 0<br />
|- <br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.<br />
<br />
Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6<br />
<br />
====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====<br />
The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]]. <br />
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.<br />
<br />
====Suburbia====<br />
The suburban electorate passed the city electorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp. <br />
DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref><br />
<br />
An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref><br />
<br />
====Rise of the right====<br />
[[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failures of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South. <br />
<br />
As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970. <br />
<br />
With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref><br />
<br />
====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====<br />
In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.<br />
<br />
However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs. <br />
<br />
The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.<br />
<br />
The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.<br />
<br />
In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref><br />
<br />
===Reagan Era===<br />
In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.<br />
<br />
Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present), he inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986. <br />
<br />
The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders. <br />
<br />
Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.<br />
<br />
House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate). <br />
<br />
In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defense spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed. <br />
<br />
In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.<br />
<br />
With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.<br />
<br />
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal. <br />
<br />
The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). <br />
<br />
Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world. <br />
<br />
On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], won 251 Electoral votes and 48% of the popular vote to Bush's 51%. It was the first time anyone won a popular majority since 1988. 2004 marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.<br />
<br />
== Contemporary Party ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[21st century Republican Party]]<br />
<br />
The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.<br />
<br />
In the past, the Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen, military veterans and evangelical Protestants. Some groups have realigned: blacks went from the GOP to the Democrats in the 1930s, while white Southerners became Republicans in the 1980s. Catholics switched from 80% Democratic in 1960 to 50-50 in recent years, primarily due to the embrace of [[abortion]] by the Democrats. In recent years youth (influenced by [[Hollywood values]]) and better educated professionals (influenced by [[professor values]]) have moved to the Democrats, while blue collar workers have become more Republican, due to the abortion issue and the Democrats support for [[nanny state]]. <br />
<br />
==2009==<br />
After smashing defeats in 2006 and 2008, the GOP lost control of Congress, the White House, and many states. They confront president who still retains some popularity, but have been able to chip away at support for his domestic policies, as the [[recession of 2008]] continues to drag on. In June 2009 public opinion was favorable toward Obama personally, but increasingly dubious about his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. But with a positive job approval rating of 51% , Obama has the backing of most Democrats, even as Republicans turn negative, with only 23% supporting him. Support for Obama's foreign policies and terrorism policies remains high at 57-59%. Meanwhile the GOP weaknesses were glaring: the June poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28% of Americans, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57% said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.<ref> [Jeff Zeleny and Dalia Sussman, "Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html?th&emc=th ''New York Times'' June 17, 2009]</ref> However, it should be noted that this poll was conducted by the [[mainstream media]] and thus is a clear example of [[liberal bias]].<br />
<br />
==Presidents from the party==<br />
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)<br />
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)<br />
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)<br />
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)<br />
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)<br />
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)<br />
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)<br />
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)<br />
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)<br />
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)<br />
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)<br />
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)<br />
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)<br />
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)<br />
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)<br />
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)<br />
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)<br />
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)<br />
<br />
==Notable Republicans (Non-presidential)==<br />
*[[James G. Blaine]] (1830-1893): Senator from [[Maine]], presidential nominee<br />
*[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836-1926): [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives]]<br />
*[[Charles Curtis]] (1860-1936): United States [[Vice President]], a Native American<br />
*[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865-1951): United States Vice President<br />
*[[Tom Dewey]] (1902-1971): Governor of [[New York]]; presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948<br />
*[[John C. Frémont]] (1813-1890): First Republican candidate for president<br />
*[[Mark Hanna]] (1837-1904): Senator from [[Ohio]], manager of 1896 campaign<br />
*[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826-1904): Senator from [[Massachusetts]]<br />
*[[Charles Evans Hughes]]: Governor of New York; presidential nominee in 1916, United States Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br />
*[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974), Senator from [[California]], Senate Majority Leader from 1953-1955, Senate Minority Leader from 1955-1959 <br />
*[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850-1924): Senator from [[Massachusetts]], foreign policy spokesman<br />
*[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908-1957): Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted anti-communist<br />
*[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839-1902): Speaker of the United States House of Representatives<br />
*[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908-1979): Vice President, Governor of New York, leader of liberal Republicans<br />
*[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868): Senator from [[Pennsylvania]], leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br />
*[[Charles Sumner]] (1811-1874): Senator from Massachusetts, leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br />
*[[Henry Stimson]]: Secretary of War for Taft and FDR, Secretary of State for Hoover <br />
*[[Robert Taft]] (1889-1953): Senator from Ohio and presidential hopeful, leader of conservatives<br />
*[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902-2003): the oldest serving senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])<br />
*[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884-1951): Senator from Michigan, leader of internationalism in 1940s<br />
*[[Earl Warren]] (1891-1974): Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br />
*[[John McCain]]: Senator from [[Arizona]], presidential nominee in 2008<br />
*[[Sarah Palin]]: Governor of [[Alaska]], vice-presidential nominee in 2008<br />
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]: Governor of [[California]]<br />
*[[Jesse Helms]] (1921-2008): Senator from North Carolina<br />
*[[Mitt Romney]]: Governor of [[Massachusetts]], presidential nominee in 2012<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly<br />
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
===Historical===<br />
*''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.<br />
* Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated<br />
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp. <br />
* ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945<br />
* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]<br />
*Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state<br />
* Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995), <br />
*Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.<br />
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist<br />
*Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition] <br />
*Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)<br />
*Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model<br />
*Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]<br />
*Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.<br />
*Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era<br />
*Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.<br />
*Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]<br />
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972) <br />
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964<br />
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972 <br />
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]<br />
*Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative<br />
*Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br />
**includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer<br />
*Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)<br />
* Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.<br />
*Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]<br />
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]<br />
* Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography <br />
===Since 1980===<br />
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.<br />
* Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)<br />
* Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp. <br />
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]<br />
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian <br />
* Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative<br />
*Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian<br />
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993<br />
* Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)<br />
* Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp. <br />
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]<br />
* Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.<br />
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]<br />
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian<br />
* Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp. <br />
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars <br />
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).<br />
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).<br />
* Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars<br />
* Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp. <br />
* Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br />
*Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]<br />
<br />
====Notes====<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]<br />
*[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]<br />
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]<br />
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br />
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Republican Party|!]]<br />
[[Category:United States]]<br />
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]<br />
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]<br />
[[Category:Featured articles]]<br />
[[Category:Modernization]]<br />
[[Category:Conservatism]]<br />
[[Category:Member of the International Democrat Union]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal conservatism]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Hacnocteestlucet&diff=1185544User:Hacnocteestlucet2015-12-06T02:18:03Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: a brief description of myself, and more may be added at some point</p>
<hr />
<div>“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” — Alexis de Tocqueville<br />
<br />
I identify as a Christian first, a conservative second, and a Republican third. I do have respect for many libertarian ideas and former Congressman Ron Paul, but I find the philosophy of libertarianism to be inadequate when dealing with social issues and foreign policy. My personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is the most important thing in my life, and I hold it above my membership at an independent fundamental church, though I do believe that communion with other believers is paramount in any person's walk with God. All life is sacred, which is why I oppose both abortion ''and'' the death penalty. Bible reading is quite important, and I have found that the King James Bible is the best (but not the only acceptable) English language Bible translation available even in the current age, and its mastery of the language and prose is general is incredible. <br />
<br />
My edits on this site will deal primarily with politics, finance, and the creation of basic articles that may be linked to in numerous other articles but may not exist. Any criticism of my work is fair, and I will be more than glad to engage in dialogue about it and how to improve it.<br />
<br />
Despite my better judgment, I do have a soft spot for campy b-movies and Taylor Swift music.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Incivility&diff=1185541Incivility2015-12-06T02:07:32Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: brief article from red link</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Incivility''' is a general term to describe the lack of standards and manners in public decorum, and can apply to heated disagreements that lead into personal ''ad hominem'' attacks, and recklessness such as vandalism.<br />
<br />
The television program ''[[Crossfire]]'' is an example of how partisan disagreements can devolve into incivility.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=1185540Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity2015-12-06T02:04:19Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: my take</p>
<hr />
<div><big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}<br />
<br />
== Notice of Pending Revision ==<br />
<br />
It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9<sup>th</sup> December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.<br />
<br />
However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.<br />
<br />
The specific changes are:<br />
<br />
*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''<br />
<br />
*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)<br />
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.<br />
<br />
:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.<br />
<br />
:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.<br />
<br />
:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.<br />
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.<br />
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample<br />
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject <br />
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==<br />
<br />
As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:<br />
<br />
{|<br />
!A Dhingra<br />
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?<br />
<br />
Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...<br />
so will the induction take place or not...??<br />
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......<br />
|-<br />
!DaleSpam<br />
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.<br />
|-<br />
!A Dhingra<br />
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....<br />
<br />
with that assumption, think about the result.......<br />
|-<br />
!DaleSpam<br />
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.<br />
|-<br />
!A Dhingra<br />
|ok........<br />
i agree that the situation is not realistic........<br />
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......<br />
|-<br />
!DaleSpam<br />
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)<br />
<br />
SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:<br />
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)<br />
<br />
Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).<br />
|-<br />
!vector22<br />
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.<br />
|-<br />
!netheril96<br />
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.<br />
|-<br />
!A Dhingra<br />
|can you help me go about finding this result......<br />
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...<br />
|}<br />
<br />
How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Previous arguments ==<br />
<br />
I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.<br />
<br />
: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.<br />
<br />
::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.<br />
<br />
::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.<br />
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== A few more things ==<br />
<br />
All right, more problems with this article:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.<br />
<br />18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.<br />
<br />24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics<br />
</blockquote><br />
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)<br />
<br />18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.<br />
<br />24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.<br />
<br />
::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."<br />
<br />
::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].<br />
<br />
::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?<br />
<br />
:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.<br />
<br />
::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.<br />
<br />
::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:<br />
<br />
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.<br />
<br />
:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.<br />
<br />
18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.<br />
<br />
:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.<br />
<br />
24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics <br />
<br />
:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated. <br />
<br />
:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.<br />
<br />
:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.<br />
<br />
:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.<br />
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:<br />
<br />
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.<br />
<br />
:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''<br />
<br />
18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.<br />
<br />
:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''<br />
<br />
24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics <br />
<br />
:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)<br />
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Recent reversion ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)<br />
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.<br />
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)<br />
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==<br />
The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]<br />
<br />
: I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I took the part out - again: have a look at the [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html updated press-release] by CERN regarding the experiment:<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The updates and corrections for the benefit of Relativists are less than persuasive. Is anyone claiming quote above ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is inaccurate? Note, by the way, that the CERN experiment is not the only one that suggested neutrinos can travel at least as fast as the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:57, 17 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
::Andy, perhaps you could write to either the ICARUS Collaboration or CERN seeking clarification of their results. After reading the actual paper[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.3433.pdf](not the press release), it seems that the team is quite confident that their latest results are in complete agreement with Relativity. "''Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. Neutrinos and GPS measurements are found to be sharply coincident in time within an uncertainty of a few nanoseconds, in disagreement with the superluminal result reported by the OPERA Collaboration.''" Yet you contend that the results from the very same experiment actually ''disproves'' Relativity. In this instance I simply think you are wrong. But who's to say that my interpretation of an article is any more accurate than yours? Obviously, we both can't be right. I think there must be a better way to settle this matter than combing through press releases. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 13:33, 17 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The new, updated claims seem more like [[political correctness]] than real science. Does the paper compare the updated results to the independent prior findings, by another experiment, that also suggested that neutrino speeds conflict with the politicized desires of Relativists?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:55, 18 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Political correctness? Come off it Schlafly. You do realize that there's far more fame and glory to be had for a physicist to prove GR wrong than there is to add to the growing list of supporting evidence? You do understand that, right? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The opposite is obviously true. Those who even question the [[Theory of Relativity]] are risking their careers. No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity; no associate professor can expect to receive tenure if he does likewise; and no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 18 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Yep, and no one will ever win a Nobel prize for questioning whether the Earth is round either. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 18:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to the spherical shape of the Earth. But if a doctoral candidate, tenure-track professor, or [[Nobel Prize]] wannabe repeats one of the 39 [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], then he's risking retaliation against his career by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:52, 18 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to relativity and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|this page]] documents in detail what's wrong with each alleged "counterexample". The acceptance of relativity has to do with the theory passing extensive experimental scrutiny and nothing to do with "liberals". --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly said: "''No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity[...]''" Yes. If a doctoral candidate whipped out almost any of your "counterexamples", in anything short of a joking fashion, they most likely would be signaling the end of their academic carrier. Why? It's simple. Advanced degrees are awarded to students who have shown a mastery of their particular field of study. Presenting this list of counterexamples in a doctoral thesis would only go towards illustrating that the student does not have a thorough understanding of SR or GR and thus should not offered a degree. No political correctness. No liberal conspiracy. <br />
<br />Aschlafly went on to say: "''...no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.''" You are 100% correct on this one. Why? Because anybody can sit around questioning anything. It doesn't take any particular knowledge, skill, education, or keen intellect to lob endless unanswerable questions. Otherwise Glenn Beck would have won the Nobel (and every other prize) by now. No, the proverbial (and many times literal) money is in ''answering'' questions. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 14:09, 21 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
''Italic text''== GPS and Relativity ==<br />
<br />
I'm in the process of getting a debate under way on 'GPS and Relativity' over at [[Talk:Theory of relativity]]. A this stage I would rather just have some references, especially any which show that Relativity is not used in the GPS system. Once we have some good references to look at, possibly in a week or two, we can then consider the evidence. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 08:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Relativity is, in fact, used in the GPS system. The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200G.pdf], p.92. section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
The polynomial defined in the<br />
following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the<br />
phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data<br />
transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the twofrequency<br />
user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated<br />
correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as<br />
well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential<br />
group delay. '''Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function'''...<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Biblical Examples ==<br />
<br />
You can't really use the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct. While I'm not disputing the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that it's a tautological argument. I could easily "prove" relativity by saying "Einstein said such-and-such" and conclude therefore that such-and-such is true. But in reality, that wouldn't prove anything because I'd essentially be saying "Einstein said this, therefore what Einstein said is correct". It's no different for the Bible. Even if we were to argue that the Bible represents absolute truth, keep in mind that our source for that is the Bible itself, so regardless of what you believe, it's still a tautological argument. I'm not going to remove the Biblical examples without discussion, but I don't think they belong here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:31, 13 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== The roundness of the sun ==<br />
<br />
I'm not completely familiar with the general and special theories of relativity, but what do they have to say about the roundness of the sun? [[User:DennyR|DennyR]] 12:41, 18 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
:There is a relationship, though it's somewhat roundabout. See item #4 in the rebuttal page. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:54, 18 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravitational waves found ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article]<br />
<br />
== Lede quote ==<br />
<br />
I would argue if anything needs to be changed it's the detail in point 4. The lede quote is recent and relevant, and more sources for it are available than just LiveScience. In looking into it more just now, I've found it's progressed. Apparently the evidence against relativity was so concerning to the scientific community they began immediately trying to explain it away and forced the person in charge to resign.[http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.html][http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html] Evidence that the original results are wrong was just finished.[http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html] This displays the level of bias in the scientific community though, in trying to do all they can to protect the doctrine of relativity, and make it appear more substantiated and certain than it is. Maybe the quote should be removed, but it should be mentioned in point 4 regardless. That such major evidence was found in recent months against relativity and the scientific community sought so hard to cover it up, is news indeed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 05:47, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No one mentioned in those articles believes that neutrinos travel faster than light. I don't see how the OPERA leaders' resignations provide any evidence. Sounds more like their team was ticked off at them for making them all look like fools. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 13:12, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
::The fact that it occurred like that shows relativity today is still under investigation, and not necessarily a proven fact - right? The scientific community is still trying to persuade everyone there is evidence for it. The effort to prove relativity correct is ongoing, rather than established like it was portrayed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:23, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Removing material==<br />
Unless you are the site owner, please do not remove, dilute, or water down, or adulterate the items here. This page is extremely famous, and represents the views of the site owner. It has been quoted and cited in print and internet articles all over the world. It has over 1.8 million page views, more than 10 times as many as either the [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and the [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] articles. If you think something is wrong, the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] article is the place to bring it up.<br />
<br />
:I suppose "2+2=4" represents my views also, but the truth does not care whether I or anyone else agrees.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 6 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Touché! Your point is well taken. Though I doubt that taking such a daring and controversial stand would get 1.8 million page views. :-) [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:36, 17 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 27. RE:PSR B1913+16 ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.<br />
</blockquote><br />
I would like to suggest that this be removed as both points (1. lack of data and 2. divergence from relativistic predictions) were disproved by the publishing of [http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/722/2/1030/ this paper] in The Astrophysical Journal in 2010. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:35, 8 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
==Force acting on a mass==<br />
The example, "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?" needs to be rephrased to be more clear. Are we talking about measuring the force applied to the object or mesuring the change in trajectory of the object? The force acts on the object, but the sentence is currently phrased as if there are two possible different answers. The force will cause the trajectory of the object to change, which can be measured in specified frames of reference. <br />
<br />
A good example would be a particle accelerator, or synchrotron. A charge particle is traveling at speeds that approach the speed of light. A magnetic field is applied to the particle to keep it traveling in a circular path. As the speed of the particle increases, the force applied to the particle must increase to keep it in the track of the particle accelerator. The force is applied at a right angle to the velocity of the particle. The calculations to determine the force needed to hold the particle to a circular path are well-tested and verified. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:42, 8 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==#47: Historical evidence suggests that the year used to have 360 days. However, Relativity cannot explain how the orbit or the rotation of Earth could have changed enough to give us the current 365.24-solar-day year.==<br />
To the best of my knowledge, this has no relevance toward proving nor disproving the General or Specific Theory of Relativity... However, very little of my physics training was in the field, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If there is no objection, I will be removing it after the mandated 24 hour waiting period. (unless the length of day suddenly changes again, I suppose it might be shorter/longer than 24 hours in that case) [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 13:18, 21 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:According to liberals, General Relativity predicts all gravitational interactions. It follows that whenever a gravity-related prediction is incorrect, Relativity has been disproven, don't you agree? Somehow the length of the day or year has changed, even though Relativity says the orbit should be static. Would you also support removing the other gravity-based examples #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #21, #41, #43, #44, #45? Of course not. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:20, 21 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Honestly, yes I would... For reasons explained on [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] and through any number of scientific journals. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 15:00, 21 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with Fnarrow. I stumbled upon this page recently and thought it was a parody. I see that some of the stranger items have been removed. But #40 persists... what do tides have to do with relativity? And #39 pre-supposes that an object is traveling at the speed of light? These are parodies, right? [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 22:10, 23 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
At least they finally got rid of the "Earthquakes in Ireland" example... I never could figure that one out. lol. But #4 still persists even thought it is easily explained by anyone who understands that it's surface is a plasma and not a solid as the citation presupposes. Anyway, I wouldn't go around agreeing with me too vocally, that's not a popular stance to take these days. Thanks for the support anyway though, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:31, 23 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Protect this page ==<br />
<br />
This page should be protected, as parodists seem to be attracted to editing it, and inserting their own information. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 23 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::I second the protection motion put forward by [[User:Brenden|Brenden]]. As much as I 1. hate protected pages on a wiki which depends on "the best of the public" an 2. desperately want to personally replace this page with refutations of every example [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] has made it clear that this page is one of the most popular on the wiki and that he stands by it. Therefore I think the following should happen:<br />
::#Revert to last known "approved" version, looks like that would be "20:44, 10 January 2013" in my opinion. <br />
::#Protected<br />
::#Move and expand the notice which currently appears at the bottom re: "future edits" and the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity.]] to the top of the page.<br />
::#Allow only [[User:Aschlafly]] to change the article in the future when/if someone provides sufficient evidence on this talk page to convince him that their proposal warrants such display. <br />
::I will take care of numbers 1 and 3 after the mandatory 24 hour waiting period, I leave 2 and 4 up to someone with those powers. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 09:34, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
I concur with Brenden and Fnarrow. This is a highly technical subject, and while it reflects the best of the public, the constant back and forth consumes too much energy from the best of the public that could be devoted to other articles. The 20:44 10 Jan version seem appropriate to me. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:39, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:Are you sure that 10 January is the right target? That version includes the derided "earthquakes in Ireland" example, as well as a few other recently-purged items. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 13:48, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::Watch out for the edits by the parodist Spielman, when selecting the revision. I haven't read the others yet, so I have no idea if they are also parody. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:05, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::Are those the ones Spielman listed in the above section (#2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #21, #41, #43, #44, #45)? Are those all parody edits? I tried contacting him (?) for clarification, but seems to be blocked. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 14:30, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::::He's a parodist, and his edits have never been in good faith. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:46, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
I'm open to any/all suggestions. 10 Jan may not be the "best possible date" but I chose it based upon the fact that it seems to align the most closely with both [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly's]] most recent edit and the refutations offered on [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]. While I agree that some of the entries on that date seem to be either 1. parodies or 2. gross misunderstandings of what the [[Theory of Relativity]] actually is, I figured choosing the date which most closely matched those two criteria would require the least all around editing on both pages. As this is obviously a contentious topic, I just want to let everyone know that I won't be changing it myself, I'll leave that to someone higher on the food chain once a satisfactory agreement has been reached here. Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:55, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::I also will wait, but in the meantime I have restored the two items deleted by AlexanderS. I would hope that Andy or someone who has spent more time than I have on the topic, will look at this page. A group of people have invested a lot of work on generating this list. If items are sourced, they should not be removed. If an item is a parody, then it should be removed because it will detract from CP's credibility. I have an open mind about this, but I also think that claims made on this page should be backed up by more detailed articles in CP. For example, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun should be covered in depth in the [[Earth]] article. If people disagree as to the relativistic effects on measuring the "year", we should give both sides of the controversy and let the reader decide. CP has at least four articles on relativity. We then summarize the "Counterexamples to Relativity" and also have a rebuttal essay. Anyone willing to read through all of that (even if the reader is a homeschooled high school student) will understand what to believe. I say lock at January 10, and then if someone wants to add or subtract from that, they can plead their case to Andy or some other Admin. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:26, 25 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Set back to version of 1 December -- explanation ==<br />
<br />
I have set the page back to the version of 18:45, 1 December 2012. ''This version was made by the site owner.'' To those who say that Spielman was a "parodist", I can say that his general edits on technical matters, including inductor, capacitor, semiconductor, laser, neutron, and the other relativity pages, have been sensible and responsible. I disagree with most of his edits to the counterexamples page, but I disagree with nearly everything on that page. To those who dislike the "warp-speed solenoid" example, I wish to point out that it was put in by the site owner at 22:57, 20 August 2011.<br />
<br />
While I disagree with much of the content of the page, it should not be diluted by well-meaning editors. Here is why:<br />
<br />
*This was largely written by the site owner, and clearly represents his views. This is corroborated by his writings on other relativity pages elsewhere. While he did not personally put in Spielman's items, he has steadfastly defended many similar items on the list (Hulse-Taylor, Mercury precession, supraluminal neutrinos, gravitons, gravity waves, dark matter, black holes, the aether, action-at-a--distance) in talk page discussions here and on other relevant pages.<br />
*In addition to writing many (if not most) of the points on this page, Andy has had ample opportunity to remove material that he considers detrimental to Conservapedia's position on relativity. Most of Spielman's "parody" edits were made prior to Andy's last edit of 1 December 2012.<br />
*The "Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" page adequately rebuts all of the points on the page. Andy accepts its existence&mdash;he has placed counter-rebuttals on it.<br />
*When users (AugustO, Wschact, et al.) have diluted other relativity pages, particularly the E=mc^2 page, Andy has been quick to revert.<br />
<br />
Users (and that includes myself) who disagree with this page and the other relativity pages are simply going to have to accept that they will not be satisfied. They will just have to be satisfied with the "rebuttal" page, or will have to go elsewhere. We need to stop the bickering.<br />
:I see that Andy has brought us back to a set of 47 counterexamples. Could we please protect the page now? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:39, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Why not welcome improvements? There have been many edits by others to this page that have strengthened it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::In my view it is a cost/benefit calculation. I would rather have people spend their time developing substantive articles, including the articles about relativity. The "Counterexamples to Relativity" and "Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" pages are more of an "op-ed" feature instead of being an integral part of the encyclopedia. I don't have the time to delve into each tendered counter-example and rebuttal. So, I would advise locking the Counterexamples down, subject to anyone making a request to add an additional bona fide counter-example. This subject is too easy to parody. For example, someone reading the "Earthquakes in Ireland" bullet would be tempted to add bullets for "Earthquakes in X" (where X is any country that has had an earthquake.) We need stated criteria for inclusion of new bullets and then we should enforce the criteria. So, protecting the article would be the next logical step. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:22, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Improvements? In reward for some of those "improvements" [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] received a five-year block from [[User:Brenden|Brenden]]. Rightly so, in my opinion, but it doesn't seem like very consistent policy. (Sorry if this is off-topic, but it just struck me as odd.) [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 19:29, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Inertia==<br />
Number 29 says, "Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions." Does this person mean "inertial mass"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:41, 25 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Good clarification. Edit mad as suggested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:13, 16 December 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Parodist ==<br />
<br />
The counterexamples number [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1003848&oldid=1002788 47, 48], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1019735&oldid=1004457 49 and 50] were added by a parodist. Should they be removed?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:57, 16 December 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, those additions should be removed. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 16 December 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Well, that's kind of embarrassing that such items would remain on the list for two years. And even now their removal is based not on logic, but on the identity of the contributor. Isn't it conceivable that the speed-of-light solenoid (now #46) is also parody? [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 15:05, 4 January 2015 (EST)<br />
<br />
::My apologies, the solenoid item was added by Mr. Schlafly himself. So, not parody. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 16:59, 4 January 2015 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Wikis are open to the public, and some people make incorrect edits, sometimes buried deep in an entry far beyond where most people would look. The significance of such activity is zero, and eventually such little-noticed edits are reverted. The only way to prevent such edits would be to close the wiki to the public, which would then miss out on many valuable insights from the [[best of the public]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 January 2015 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Action-at-a-distance according to the Bible ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{cquote|The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 4|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)#Chapter 15|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#Chapter 27|Matthew 27:51]].}}<br />
<br />
That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly 30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011. <br />
<br />
How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't<br />
*It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision<br />
*Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...<br />
*The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!<br />
<br />
Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).<br />
<br />
You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing [[action-at-a-distance]]. Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes, Jesus acted over a distance - but instantaneously? That's your interpretation! If it is "widely understood" to happen instantaneously, you shouldn't have a problem to give some sources which corroborate this claim. I couldn't find any. <br />
::Furthermore: because of the technical problems which I described above, we cannot rely on eyewitnesses. Did Jesus Himself state that he has performed an [[action-at-a-distance]], i.e., caused something in a distance without temporary delay? No, He didn't.<br />
:: --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"''Please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something''": I'm happy to do so and I will present my arguments. Andy, I hope you will join the discussion!<br />
:I waited more than two days for the other site to engage in a meaningful discussion. It seems that we have reached an agreement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:26, 22 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===[[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 4|John 4:46-54]]===<br />
Jesus didn't claim that the healing took place instantaneously. Andy, do you think the nobleman and his servants were able to spot whether to events took place at the same time in Cana and Capernaum? If not, this example should be removed. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The better translation is "Then the father realized that this was the same moment when Jesus said to him, "your son lives," so both he and his entire house believed." "Same moment" means simultaneously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''"Then ''the father'' realized"''': how could the father judge that it happened "at the same moment", and not with a delay of 1/10,000 s? Answer: He couldn't - even if his son got better five minutes before he met Jesus, and Jesus just relayed this fact, or if the healing needed five minutes, and Jesus spoke about an event in the near future! For the father (and the Roman time-keeping abilities) it was enough that it happened in the same hour! <br />
::Everybody of a certain age knows what she or he did when Kennedy was shot. But does he really know what he did in the very moment the bullet struck the president? No, at best, he knows what he did when the transmission of the shot arrived. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:01, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===[[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)#Chapter 15|Matthew 15:28]]===<br />
καὶ ἰάθη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης. ''and her daughter was healed from the very hour'' We don't know ''where'' the daughter was. Though the mother could have left her in Cana, she could also be accompanying her! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===[[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#Chapter 27|Matthew 27:51]]===<br />
Andy, you state: "The Greek "Καὶ ἰδού" in this context emphasizes the identical timing" - but we have a string of sentences joined by Καὶ: '''Καὶ''' ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο, '''Καὶ''' ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη, '''Καὶ''' αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν, '''Καὶ''' τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν '''Καὶ''' πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, '''Καὶ''' ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν '''Καὶ''' ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. Obviously, not all of these events happened at the same time! And for the last four years, you haven't presented any scholarly source which would support your translation of [[idou]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Widely Understood ==<br />
<br />
Andy, the [[GPS]] is widely understood to take relativistic effects into account - and here, I can present examples ;-) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:49, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 7 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Funny, how these experimental observations coincide with the theoretical predictions by relativity - one could see this as a confirmation of the theory.<br />
::But let's wait for [[Galileo]] - [http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Improving_the_accuracy_of_satellite_navigation_systems they are thinking about a different approach]:<br />
:::&laquo;<i>Present navigation satellite systems, such as Galileo and GPS, employ Newtonian trigonometry to determine positions, using Earth stations as reference points. This approach would perform ideally if all the satellites and the receiver were at rest and far from Earth.</i>&raquo;<br />
<br />
:::&laquo;<i>However, this is only correct as a first approximation – because of the level of precision needed by a GNSS, the distortions that Earth causes in nearby space and time (space-time curvature) and the effects of the relative motions between the satellites and the user (relativistic inertial effects) both have to be considered. These are accounted for by introducing relativistic corrections to the Newtonian theory. For a ground user, these corrections can be as large as 12 km after one day.</i>&raquo;<br />
<br />
:::&laquo;<i>A simple way to avoid having to deal with the defects of Newtonian theory is to change the paradigm. Instead of modelling the system in a Newtonian framework and adding relativistic corrections, the positioning system could be modelled directly in general relativity. </i>&raquo;<br />
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 7 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The "experimental observation" and "[contrived] theoretical predictions" happen to match. This should surprise no one, since relativity is correct. The GPS adjustments may be made by computers that are using observed ephemeris data from the satellites, but '''everyone involved knows''' that the '''basis''' for those adjustments (7 us/day up for SR; 45 us/day down for GR) is relativity. No one operating the GPS control stations will tell you that "We fudge the satellite clocks by 38 microseconds per day, but we don't know why this is needed." They knew that they would need the correction, based on relativity, before the satellites were launched; the correction mechanism was built in before launch. Very fine "tweaking" of the clocks is made by the control stations, but that's because of uncertainty of the satellites' orbits. The tweaking is not because relativity is wrong. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html this article] for an explanation of the 38 microsecond correction. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:00, 7 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Andy, you are missing the point of this section===<br />
The [[GPS]] is '''''widely understood''''' to take relativistic effects into account - just google ''"GPS" "theory of relativity"'' and you get numerous links to universities, etc., most of which in favor of the statement. Nonetheless, this isn't good enough for you: predictably, you are ignoring all these voices, and just state that "''The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity''". I get it: ''"widely understood"'' isn't a yardstick for credibility.<br />
<br />
Or is it? A little earlier, your only answer to<br />
{|class="wikitable"<br />
|<br />
{{cquote|The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 4|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)#Chapter 15|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#Chapter 27|Matthew 27:51]].}}<br />
<br />
That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly 30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011. <br />
<br />
How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't<br />
*It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision<br />
*Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...<br />
*The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!<br />
<br />
Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).<br />
<br />
You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)|}<br />
|}<br />
was<br />
{|class="wikitable"<br />
|The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing [[action-at-a-distance]]. Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
That was your whole argument! Sweet (predictable) irony! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<small>BTW: if you google "action-at-a-distance" "Matthew 15:28", virtually all results are connected with Conservapedia! So, at best, this passage is widely understood only by you as describing action-at-a-distance... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)</small><br />
<br />
== Relativity Conflicts with Bible ==<br />
<br />
The Bible describes [[action at a distance]]. Relativity falsely denies it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 7 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Andy, on March 19, 2015 you wrote: "''please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something''". Therefore, I laid out my argument at [[#Action-at-a-distance_according_to_the_Bible]]. I waited for two days, but you didn't address my points. Thus, I thought that you had conceded this point, and I deleted it from the list.<br />
<br />
:Now, I'd say it is your turn to ''discuss first before repeatedly adding something''! Merely repeating your point of view isn't a discussion! So, please address my points above. For your convenience, a short summary:<br />
::*Jesus never said that he made something happen instantaneously over a distance<br />
::*The witnesses at that time couldn't know whether something happened instantaneously or with a delay.<br />
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:39, 7 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
:BTW: take a look at [[Talk:Action at a distance#Biblical Example ]] --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:09, 7 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I don't understand the connection between this and moral relativity. Could someone please explain?<br />
:My understanding of the link is that they both simply pertain to the general notion of [[relativity]], simply put, which can be applied in a way that allows the observer to see a steep slippery slope, if one accepts the notion that all things are relative. --[[User:Hacnocteestlucet|Hacnocteestlucet]] ([[User talk:Hacnocteestlucet|talk]]) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (EST)</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=S.E._Cupp&diff=1185539S.E. Cupp2015-12-06T02:01:51Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:SECUPP.jpg|right|150px]]<br />
<br />
'''S.E. Cupp''' (b. February 23, 1979) is an [[atheist]] political commentator. She is an author of the book ''Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity'', detailing the [[mainstream media]]'s blatant and obvious bias against [[Christianity]]. Cupp is also the co-author of the book ''Why You're Wrong about the Right: Behind the Myths''. She was also an anchor on ''Real News'' on [[Glenn Beck]]'s The Blaze.<br />
<br />
She is currently a commentator for [[CNN]] and was formerly a co-host on the now cancelled political debate show ''[[Crossfire]]'' and before that a co-host on the [[MSNBC]] canceled [[left-wing]] political talk show ''The Cycle''. Despite being a self-proclaimed [[conservative]], Cupp is very vocal about her [[Liberalism|social liberalism]] and her contempt for conservative figures such as [[Rush Limbaugh]]. Cupp has also declared that she is boycotting the [[CPAC|Conservative Political Action Conference]] simply because the event is not co-sponsored by the leftist gay group [[GOProud]]. In February 2013, she signed an amicus curiae brief demanding that the U.S. Supreme Court force every single state in the United States to recognize [[Same-sex marriage|gay "marriage"]] regardless of the wishes of residents of those states. On a November 2013 broadcast of ''Crossfire'', Cupp attacked and berated Christian activist [[Ralph Reed]] because he supports traditional marriage.<ref>http://crossfire.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/19/cupp-cheney-feud-reflects-gop-divide-on-same-sex-marriage/</ref><br />
<br />
Although Cupp is a self-described atheist, she has repeatedly stated that she's open to [[theism]],<ref>Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATz6MS9YPU "Q&A: S.E. Cupp"], ''C-SPAN'', Washington DC, 19 October 2009. Retrieved on 12 March 201.</ref><ref name=Hack>[[Alex Pareene|Pareene, Alex]] (2010-11-23) [http://www.salon.com/2010/11/22/hack_list_21/ War Room's Hack Thirty - No. 21: S.E. Cupp], ''[[Salon.com]]''</ref><ref name="LOR-1">{{cite book |title=[[Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity]] |isbn=978-1-4391-7316-9 |author=Cupp, S. E.|publisher=Threshold Editions |page=10 |date=April 2010 |quote=I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for fifteen years. ... I believe ... that Judeo-Christian values, religious tolerance, an objective press, the benevolence of Christianity, and civility and decency make for a better American democracy.}}</ref> and "really aspires to be a person of faith some day."<ref>{{cite news| url = http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/23/2009-12-23_se_cupp_belief_and_nonbelief_are_not_equal.html?print=1&page=all | title = Belief and nonbelief are not equal | author = S. E. Cupp |newspaper =Daily News| date = 2009-12-23 | quote = As an atheist myself, I like to think I adhere to the same Judeo-Christian values that most of religious America does.}}</ref><ref>Q&A with S.E. Cupp, [[C-SPAN]], October 18, 2009. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATz6MS9YPU#t=12m32s YouTube]</ref><br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Essay:List of celebrities who support the Second Amendment]] <br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://thesecupp.com/ S.E.Cupp's personal website]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Cupp, S. E.}}<br />
[[Category : Authors]]<br />
[[Category : Women]]<br />
[[Category : Atheists]]<br />
[[Category : RINOs]]<br />
[[Category : Homosexual Agenda]]<br />
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]<br />
[[Category : American Gun Rights Advocates]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185537Crossfire2015-12-06T01:57:01Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|120px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, though Buchanan did leave the program to work for the Reagan Administration, and Carlson eventually left to host the short-lived show ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]].<br />
<br />
The liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. Some analysts claim that Stewart's appearance caused the cancellation of the first iteration of the program. The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program, and a desire to focus on more issue and breaking news-oriented programming, such as the ''Situation Room''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|120px|[[Conservative|"On the right,"]] S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back. The show was quietly canceled, and replaced with typical CNN news programming as before due to the divisive nature of the program despite the inclusion of the "Cease Fire" final segment of the program that encouraged debate participants to find common ground, a section that was absent from the first iteration of the program, and was created in response to public perception of the hostile and uncivil nature of this type of programming. <br />
<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overdraft&diff=1185536Overdraft2015-12-06T01:53:50Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: brief article from red link</p>
<hr />
<div>An '''overdraft''' occurs when money is withdrawn from a bank account and the available balance goes below zero. If the customer has an agreement with the financial institution, the account is then charged interest when the money not available in the account is retrieved, and an overdraft fee may be applied.b</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debit_card&diff=1185535Debit card2015-12-06T01:50:44Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: brief article from red link</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''debit card''' (also known as a '''bank card''' or '''check card''') is a plastic card used for payment of goods and services, and is an alternative to a paper [[check]]. A regular debit card is issued by a bank and allows direct access to the cardholder's checking account. It is an alternative to a [[credit card]] because it does not allow access to any [[line of credit]] and no interest is charged because no money is borrowed, and it allows a convenient alternative to carrying cash or paper checks.<ref>Many merchants do not accept paper checks at all in the current age.</ref> Unless the account allows for [[overdraft]], the cardholder cannot access any money beyond that in the particular checking account when using a debit card.<br />
<br />
Prepaid debit cards exist, and have a specific amount of money able to be used, and these cards are often used as gift cards as an alternative to gift cards only valid to be used in a particular institution (i.e. [[McDonalds]], [[Walmart]]) because they are issued by companies such as [[MasterCard]] and a prepaid MasterCard debit card for instance can be used anywhere MasterCard is accepted. Some prepaid debit cards are reloadable and may be used in this way so that the card is not tied to any checking account, and additional security is available. <br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Check_(finances)&diff=1185534Check (finances)2015-12-06T01:41:32Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: brief article from red link</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''check''' is a slip of paper that requires a bank to pay a person a specifically allotted amount of money from another person's [[checking account]]. The institution is required to pay the person that specific amount of money in a specific currency. An alternative to paper checks is a [[debit card]].</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185521Crossfire2015-12-05T21:28:08Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|120px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, though Buchanan did leave the program to work for the Reagan Administration, and Carlson eventually left to host the short-lived show ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]].<br />
<br />
The liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program, and a desire to focus on more issue and breaking news-oriented programming, such as the ''Situation Room''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|120px|[[Conservative|"On the right"]], S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back. The show was quietly canceled, and replaced with typical CNN news programming as before due to the divisive nature of the program despite the inclusion of the "Cease Fire" final segment of the program that encouraged debate participants to find common ground, a section that was absent from the first iteration of the program, and was created in response to public perception of the hostile and uncivil nature of this type of programming. <br />
<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185517Crossfire2015-12-05T21:00:42Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|150px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, though Buchanan did leave the program to work for the Reagan Administration, and Carlson eventually left to host the short-lived show ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]].<br />
<br />
The liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program, and a desire to focus on more issue and breaking news-oriented programming, such as the ''Situation Room''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back. The show was quietly canceled, and replaced with typical CNN news programming as before due to the divisive nature of the program despite the inclusion of the "Cease Fire" final segment of the program that encouraged debate participants to find common ground, a section that was absent from the first iteration of the program, and was created in response to public perception of the hostile and uncivil nature of this type of programming. <br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|150px|[[Conservative|"On the right"]], S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185516Crossfire2015-12-05T20:50:55Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|150px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left." The original show did last for a number of years, and the liberal "comedian" [[Jon Stewart]] appeared on the program under the pretense he was selling his new book he collaborated with his writers for the liberal ''Daily Show'' program on [[Comedy Central]]. Instead, he used the platform to rib the hosts, particularly Carlson, and the uncivil discourse on the program and what Stewart thought was the poisoning by the political system with the rhetoric found on this program. The first iteration was canceled shortly after Stewart's appearance, though CNN denies that it has anything to do with Stewart's appearance, and it had to do with scheduling issues for the network's program. <ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Stewart's ''Crossfire'' appearance]</ref><br />
<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back.<br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|150px|[[Conservative|"On the right"]], S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]<br />
==Footnotes==</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1185514Donald Trump2015-12-05T20:41:37Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:031711trump.jpg|right]]<br />
<br />
'''Donald Trump''' (b. [[Queens]], [[New York]], on June 14, 1946), nickname "The Donald," (or simply - "The Don") is a successful businessman, entrepreneur, and [[television]] personality. He has engaged in many financial pursuits and estimates that his net worth is 10 billion.<ref>LoGiurato, Brett (July 25, 2015). [http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-net-worth-2015-7 "We finally know a lot more about Donald Trump's 'massive' net worth"]. Business Insider website.</ref> He graduated from the New York Military Academy in 1964 and first attended college at [[Fordham University]] for two years before transferring to the more competitive [[University of Pennsylvania]] and then completing his studies at the prestigious Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Trump has five children. In February 2011, he announced that he is [[pro-life]], but on August 11, 2015, he indicated that he might support taxpayer funding of [[Planned Parenthood]] for its non-[[abortion]] activities (which builds its brand and funds its overhead). On June 16, 2015, he declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the [[2016 presidential election]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/16/trump-announces-white-house-bid-joins-crowded-gop-field/ "Trump announces White House bid, joins crowded GOP field"] (June 16, 2015). Fox News website/Politics.</ref><br />
<br />
The front-runner in a record-breaking field of 17 [[Republican]] candidates, Trump announced that he did not anticipate "throwing punches" against his rivals in the first GOP debate.<ref>Chiacu, Donna and Torbati, Yeganeh (August 2, 2015). [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/02/us-usa-election-debate-idUSKCN0Q70NI20150802 "Trump says won't be 'throwing punches' in U.S. Republican debate"]. Reuters website.</ref> But at the debate the [[Fox News Channel]]—particularly its [[feminist]] non-journalist [[Megyn Kelly]]—ambushed Trump with out-of-context quotations designed to smear him as somehow being anti-women. This ignited a national controversy that lasted for days, and Trump called upon Kelly to apologize, which she refused to do.<br />
<br />
Unlike most other candidates, Trump sharply criticizes the media and talks about issues that no elected official dares touch. In 2011, Trump persistently doubted whether [[Barack Obama]] had been born in the [[United States]], and it caused Obama's approval ratings to drop below 40% until Obama finally caved in to Trump and produced what Obama claimed was his birth certificate. Trump then scoffed at Obama's conduct.<br />
<br />
Trump's central campaign theme has been to oppose [[illegal immigration]], and he enlisted Senator [[Jeff Sessions]] as an adviser on this issue. As reported by Breitbart, "Sen. Sessions, Chairman of the Senate’s Immigration Subcommittee, is widely regarded as the gold standard on immigration. Sessions has also become the intellectual thought leader in the Republican Party on appealing to the blue collar voters who have been abandoned by their political leaders." <ref>Hahn, Julia (August 14, 2015). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/14/game-change-trump-consults-with-sen-jeff-sessions-on-immigration-strategy/ "Game change: Trump consults with Sen Jeff Sessions on immigration strategy"]. Breitbart website/Big government.</ref><br />
<br />
In the 2016 [[Value Voters Debate|Value Voters]] poll, Trump performed poorly, coming in fifth, indicating the [[Christian]] [[conservatives]] may not have warmed up to him. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-conservative-poll-donald-trump-could-not-win/],</ref><br />
<br />
==Early life==<br />
<br />
Donald Trump attended the First [[Presbyterian]] Church in Jamaica, Queens. He told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he still considers himself a [[Presbyterian]] and attends services for all major holidays and Sundays, and that "The [[Bible]] is certainly THE book." He receives Bibles from fans in the mail, and he either stores them or gives them away to others.<ref>Haberman, Maggie (April 11, 2011). [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52942.html "Donald Trump talks about religion"]. Politico website.</ref><br />
<br />
==Career==<br />
<br />
Donald Trump began his career at Trump Organization. In his college years, he helped revitalize one of his father's failing real estate ventures. Trump began opening hotels and casinos, which provided him with the cash flow to engage in other ventures. He owns the world-famous Trump Tower and is the founder of the publicly traded Trump Hotel Casinos & Resorts. Trump also owns the Trump brand, which sells a variety of items, such as bottled water, steak, and even mortgages. Trump has authored a number of books and weathered changing business fortunes, but despite the challenges that he has encountered, he has continued to be a successful businessman and entrepreneur.<br />
<br />
Trump considered [[presidential election 2012|running for President in 2012]] as a [[Republican]]. He, among others, questioned the citizenship of [[Barack Obama]], citing his failure to produce his birth certificate. After Obama produced his birth certificate, Trump and the other [[birther]]s continue to doubt its authenticity. Obama's approval ratings were around 40% during the peak of the controversy. Trump later exited the race, and gave the customary endorsement to [[Mitt Romney]] as the other [[Republican]] contenders did.<br />
<br />
==Major properties==<br />
<br />
*Trump World Tower: 845 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY. <br />
<br />
*Trump Tower: 725 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10022 Personal Residence<br />
<br />
*Trump Taj Mahal <br />
<br />
*Trump Marina <br />
<br />
*Bank of America Center (San Francisco)<br />
<br />
*The Trump Building at 40 Wall Street<br />
<br />
*Trump Plaza <br />
<br />
*Trump Park Avenue<br />
<br />
*Trump Entertainment Resorts<br />
<br />
*TrumpStreet Casino & Entertainment Complex, Philadelphia<br />
<br />
*AXA Financial Center, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY <br />
<br />
*Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago<br />
<br />
*Mar-A-Lago Palm Beach <br />
<br />
*Four golf courses in the U.S.<br />
<br />
==Media==<br />
<br />
In 2003 Trump began as the host and executive producer of the reality [[television]] show ''The Apprentice'' and ''The Celebrity Apprentice'', where contestants compete for a position in Trump's organization. On this show, Trump popularized his catchphrase "You're fired!"<br />
<br />
Trump owns the Miss Universe Pageant. Controversy arose when one of the winners, Tara Conner, was caught breaking pageant rules by drinking and other activities. Trump gave her a second chance after personally speaking with her and allowed her to retain her crown as she attended rehabilitation. For several weeks after this, [[Rosie O'Donnell]] berated Trump for his decision on ''The View''. A bitter media war ensued with the two exchanging insults.<br />
<br />
Trump has appeared on several TV shows and movies for guest appearances. He generally appears as himself.<br />
<br />
==Political positions==<br />
<br />
====Abortion====<br />
<br />
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, Trump announced he is [[pro-life]].<ref>Rahn, Will (February 10, 2011). [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/trump-at-cpac-points-to-white-house-run/ "Trump at CPAC points to White House run"]. The Daily Caller website.</ref><br />
<br />
====Affordable Care Act====<br />
<br />
Trump intends to repeal [[Obamacare]].<ref name=Educ>Breitbart.tv (February 9, 2011). [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2011/02/09/pro-life-donald-trump-would-eliminate-dept-of-education-impose-25-tax-on-china-imports-if-president/ "Pro-life Donald Trump would eliminate Dept of Education, impose 25% tax on China imports if president"]. Breitbart.com.</ref><br />
<br />
====Controversy with Barack Obama====<br />
<br />
Trump has also questioned Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president, in light of the ongoing questions surrounding his birth certificate.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280533 "Trump: Obama spending millions to hide his past"] (March 28, 2011). WorldNetDaily website.</ref><br />
<br />
====Department of Education====<br />
<br />
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, he stated that he wants to eliminate the Department of Education.<ref name=Educ/><br />
<br />
====Foreign policy====<br />
Trump wants to improve relationships with [[Russia]]n president [[Vladimir Putin]].<ref>Johnson, Simon (July 31, 2015). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11775145/Donald-Trump-Id-get-on-very-well-with-Putin-if-I-were-president.html "Donald Trump: I'd get on 'very well' with Putin if I were president"]. The Telegraph [U.K.] website.</ref><br />
<br />
Trump says the [[Iran]] deal is bad, but as president he would enforce it anyway.<br />
<br />
====Global warming====<br />
<br />
Trump does not believe in the [[Climate Change]] hysteria, once stating the "Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from [[Al Gore]]."<br />
<br />
====Gun control====<br />
<br />
Trump is against gun control.<ref name=Educ/><br />
<br />
====Homosexual agenda====<br />
<br />
For all practical purposes, Trump seems to be on the side of the [[homosexual agenda]]. He supports the creation of new law by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], as in a new right to [[homosexual marriage]], and declares it the "law of the land" even though Congress passed no such law.<br />
<br />
Trump has attended multiple [[same-sex marriage]] ceremonies, but has also said in the past that he opposes same-sex marriage. Trump's views are not yet known on other aspects of the [[homosexual agenda]], such as whether Trump would ban [[conversion therapy]] for minors as [[Chris Christie]] did. The [[Fox News Channel]] debate in August avoided these issues, but future debates will probably require Trump to declare his position.<br />
<br />
====Immigration====<br />
<br />
See the discussion in the introduction above. This is Trump's main campaign issue.<br />
<br />
====Political contributions====<br />
<br />
He has been criticized for his substantial contributions to [[Democrat]] lawmakers; the majority of those lawmakers are located in the states he resides in: New York and Florida. The amount he has donated since 2008 is $25,000, which is insignficant considering his wealth.<ref>Allin, Olivia (April 30, 2011). [http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Donald-Trump-calls-nations-leaders-stupid-people-and-blood-sucking-politicians/8104644 "OTRC: Donald Trump calls nation's leaders 'stupid people' and 'blood-sucking politicians'"]. OnTheRedCarpet [news]. Retrieved from ABC7 [KABC Television, Los Angeles] website.</ref><br />
<br />
====Tariffs====<br />
<br />
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, he stated that he supports a 25% tariff on Chinese goods.<ref name=Educ/><br />
<br />
====Vaccines====<br />
Trump believes that [[vaccines]] cause [[autism]],<ref>http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/253980-trump-links-vaccines-to-autism-epidemic</ref> and has argued against requiring that so many vaccines be given to infants.<br />
<br />
==Quotes from the 2016 campaign for President==<br />
*I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.<br />
*I’m using my own money. I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich.<br />
*Free trade is terrible. Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people. But we have stupid people.<br />
*Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody. Within our military, I will find the General Patton, or I will find General MacArthur, I will find the right guy.<br />
*I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have [[Mexico]] pay for that wall.<br />
<br />
==Quotes from Twitter==<br />
* "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (August 6, 2012, 1:23 pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref><br />
* "This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (January 1, 2014, 4:39pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/418542137899491328 "This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref><br />
* "It’s amazing how people can talk about me but I’m not allowed to talk about them."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (November 13, 2012, 12:23pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/268449146711703553 "It’s amazing how people can talk about me but I’m not allowed to talk about them."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref><br />
<br />
==Other quotes==<br />
* "[T]he country is going to hell."<ref>Cassidy, Chris (March 19, 2015). [http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/03/country_is_going_to_hell_claims_donald_trump "'Country is going to hell,' claims Donald Trump"]. BostonHerald.com website.</ref><br />
* "We have no leader in this country.”<ref>Reisner, Hiram (April 22, 2011). [http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/donaldtrump-karlrove-gop-birther/2011/04/22/id/393742 "Trump: I'd just take Libyan oil"]. NewsMax website.</ref><br />
* "Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people."<ref>Pierce, Tony (April 29, 2011). [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/donald-trump-in-vegas-our-leaders-are-stupid-they-are-stupid-people.html "Donald Trump in Vegas: 'Our leaders are stupid; they are stupid people'"]. Los Angeles Times website/Top of the Ticket blog.</ref><br />
* "I can tell you I am [the 2012 Obama campaign's] worst nightmare."<ref>Mooney, Alexander (April 11, 2011). [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/trump-says-he-is-obama-campaigns-worst-nightmare/comment-page-6/ "Trump says he is Obama campaign's worst nightmare"]. Cable News Network website/politicalticker blog.</ref><br />
* "Obama has no solutions."<ref>Coz, Steve (August 19, 2012). [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-gibbs-fox-obama/2012/08/19/id/449050/ "Trump fires back at Obama campaign smear"]. Newsmax website/Newsfront.</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Donald Trump's religious views]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.trump.com Official website]<br />
* [http://shouldtrumprun.com/ Should Donald Run? Polling]<br />
* [http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/04/trump-explains-conversion-on-abortion.html Trump explains his pro-life conversion]<br />
* [https://www.donaldjtrump.com Donald Trump 2016 campaign website]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Trump, Donald}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Celebrities]] <br />
[[Category:Business People]]<br />
[[Category:Authors]]<br />
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]<br />
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal conservatism]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185506Crossfire2015-12-05T20:00:41Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|150px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. Relevant current events were debated in an often passionate manner, and sometimes the debates reached the point of [[incivility]] which may have been part of the reason viewers decided to tune out, as the pundits on the program represented the broken political discourse found in the United States. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]] "on the right" and such personalities as [[Bill Press]] "on the left."<br />
<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. It aired weekdays at 6:30 PM for half an hour, in contrast to the episodes in 2002 that aired for an hour. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back.<br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|150px|[[Conservative|On the right]], S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185505Crossfire2015-12-05T19:56:01Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|150px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]].<br />
<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back.<br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|thumb|right|150px|[[Conservative|On the right]], S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014)]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185504Crossfire2015-12-05T19:55:18Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:VanJones.jpg|thumb|150px|left|"[[Liberal|On the left]]," Van Jones. (2013-2014)]]<br />
'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]].<br />
<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back.<br />
[[File:SECUPP.jpg|right|150px|[[Conservative|On the right]], S.E. Cupp. (2013-2014]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hacnocteestlucet&diff=1185502User talk:Hacnocteestlucet2015-12-05T19:49:41Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: Created page with ""We don't need to share the same opinions as others, but we need to be respectful.""</p>
<hr />
<div>"We don't need to share the same opinions as others, but we need to be respectful."</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1185500Donald Trump2015-12-05T19:38:01Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: This is not a Japanese-language encyclopedia.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:031711trump.jpg|right]]<br />
<br />
'''Donald Trump''' (b. [[Queens]], [[New York]], on June 14, 1946), nickname "The Donald," (or simply - "The Don") is a successful businessman, entrepreneur, and [[television]] personality. He has engaged in many financial pursuits and estimates that his net worth is 10 billion.<ref>LoGiurato, Brett (July 25, 2015). [http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-net-worth-2015-7 "We finally know a lot more about Donald Trump's 'massive' net worth"]. Business Insider website.</ref> He graduated from the New York Military Academy in 1964 and first attended college at [[Fordham University]] for two years before transferring to the more competitive [[University of Pennsylvania]] and then completing his studies at the prestigious Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Trump has five children. In February 2011, he announced that he is [[pro-life]], but on August 11, 2015, he indicated that he might support taxpayer funding of [[Planned Parenthood]] for its non-[[abortion]] activities (which builds its brand and funds its overhead). On June 16, 2015, he declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the [[2016 presidential election]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/16/trump-announces-white-house-bid-joins-crowded-gop-field/ "Trump announces White House bid, joins crowded GOP field"] (June 16, 2015). Fox News website/Politics.</ref><br />
<br />
The front-runner in a record-breaking field of 17 [[Republican]] candidates, Trump announced that he did not anticipate "throwing punches" against his rivals in the first GOP debate.<ref>Chiacu, Donna and Torbati, Yeganeh (August 2, 2015). [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/02/us-usa-election-debate-idUSKCN0Q70NI20150802 "Trump says won't be 'throwing punches' in U.S. Republican debate"]. Reuters website.</ref> But at the debate the [[Fox News Channel]]—particularly its [[feminist]] non-journalist [[Megyn Kelly]]—ambushed Trump with out-of-context quotations designed to smear him as somehow being anti-women. This ignited a national controversy that lasted for days, and Trump called upon Kelly to apologize, which she refused to do.<br />
<br />
Unlike most other candidates, Trump sharply criticizes the media and talks about issues that no elected official dares touch. In 2011, Trump persistently doubted whether [[Barack Obama]] had been born in the [[United States]], and it caused Obama's approval ratings to drop below 40% until Obama finally caved in to Trump and produced what Obama claimed was his birth certificate. Trump then scoffed at Obama's conduct.<br />
<br />
Trump's central campaign theme has been to oppose [[illegal immigration]], and he enlisted Senator [[Jeff Sessions]] as an adviser on this issue. As reported by Breitbart, "Sen. Sessions, Chairman of the Senate’s Immigration Subcommittee, is widely regarded as the gold standard on immigration. Sessions has also become the intellectual thought leader in the Republican Party on appealing to the blue collar voters who have been abandoned by their political leaders." <ref>Hahn, Julia (August 14, 2015). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/14/game-change-trump-consults-with-sen-jeff-sessions-on-immigration-strategy/ "Game change: Trump consults with Sen Jeff Sessions on immigration strategy"]. Breitbart website/Big government.</ref><br />
<br />
In the 2016 [[Value Voters Debate|Value Voters]] poll, Trump performed poorly, coming in fifth, indicating the [[Christian]] [[conservatives]] may not have warmed up to him. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-conservative-poll-donald-trump-could-not-win/],</ref><br />
<br />
==Early life==<br />
<br />
Donald Trump attended the First [[Presbyterian]] Church in Jamaica, Queens. He told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he still considers himself a [[Presbyterian]] and attends services for all major holidays and Sundays, and that "The [[Bible]] is certainly THE book." He receives Bibles from fans in the mail, and he either stores them or gives them away to others.<ref>Haberman, Maggie (April 11, 2011). [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52942.html "Donald Trump talks about religion"]. Politico website.</ref><br />
<br />
==Career==<br />
<br />
Donald Trump began his career at Trump Organization. In his college years, he helped revitalize one of his father's failing real estate ventures. Trump began opening hotels and casinos, which provided him with the cash flow to engage in other ventures. He owns the world-famous Trump Tower and is the founder of the publicly traded Trump Hotel Casinos & Resorts. Trump also owns the Trump brand, which sells a variety of items, such as bottled water, steak, and even mortgages. Trump has authored a number of books and weathered changing business fortunes, but despite the challenges that he has encountered, he has continued to be a successful businessman and entrepreneur.<br />
<br />
Trump considered [[presidential election 2012|running for President in 2012]] as a [[Republican]]. He, among others, questioned the citizenship of [[Barack Obama]], citing his failure to produce his birth certificate. After Obama produced his birth certificate, Trump and the other [[birther]]s continue to doubt its authenticity. Obama's approval ratings were around 40% during the peak of the controversy. Trump later exited the race, and gave the customary endorsement to [[Mitt Romney]] as the other [[Republican]] contenders did.<br />
<br />
==Major properties==<br />
<br />
*Trump World Tower: 845 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY. <br />
<br />
*Trump Tower: 725 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10022 Personal Residence<br />
<br />
*Trump Taj Mahal <br />
<br />
*Trump Marina <br />
<br />
*Bank of America Center (San Francisco)<br />
<br />
*The Trump Building at 40 Wall Street<br />
<br />
*Trump Plaza <br />
<br />
*Trump Park Avenue<br />
<br />
*Trump Entertainment Resorts<br />
<br />
*TrumpStreet Casino & Entertainment Complex, Philadelphia<br />
<br />
*AXA Financial Center, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY <br />
<br />
*Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago<br />
<br />
*Mar-A-Lago Palm Beach <br />
<br />
*Four golf courses in the U.S.<br />
<br />
==Media==<br />
<br />
In 2003 Trump began as the host and executive producer of the reality [[television]] show ''The Apprentice'' and ''The Celebrity Apprentice'', where contestants compete for a position in Trump's organization. On this show, Trump popularized his catchphrase "You're fired!"<br />
<br />
Trump owns the Miss Universe Pageant. Controversy arose when one of the winners, Tara Conner, was caught breaking pageant rules by drinking and other activities. Trump gave her a second chance after personally speaking with her and allowed her to retain her crown as she attended rehabilitation. For several weeks after this, [[Rosie O'Donnell]] berated Trump for his decision on ''The View''. A bitter media war ensued with the two exchanging insults.<br />
<br />
Trump has appeared on several TV shows and movies for guest appearances. He generally appears as himself.<br />
<br />
==Political positions==<br />
<br />
====Abortion====<br />
<br />
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, Trump announced he is [[pro-life]].<ref>Rahn, Will (February 10, 2011). [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/trump-at-cpac-points-to-white-house-run/ "Trump at CPAC points to White House run"]. The Daily Caller website.</ref><br />
<br />
====Affordable Care Act====<br />
<br />
Trump intends to repeal [[Obamacare]].<ref name=Educ>Breitbart.tv (February 9, 2011). [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2011/02/09/pro-life-donald-trump-would-eliminate-dept-of-education-impose-25-tax-on-china-imports-if-president/ "Pro-life Donald Trump would eliminate Dept of Education, impose 25% tax on China imports if president"]. Breitbart.com.</ref><br />
<br />
====Controversy with Barack Obama====<br />
<br />
Trump has also questioned Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president, in light of the ongoing questions surrounding his birth certificate.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280533 "Trump: Obama spending millions to hide his past"] (March 28, 2011). WorldNetDaily website.</ref><br />
<br />
====Department of Education====<br />
<br />
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, he stated that he wants to eliminate the Department of Education.<ref name=Educ/><br />
<br />
====Foreign policy====<br />
Trump wants to improve relationships with [[Russia]]n president [[Vladimir Putin]].<ref>Johnson, Simon (July 31, 2015). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11775145/Donald-Trump-Id-get-on-very-well-with-Putin-if-I-were-president.html "Donald Trump: I'd get on 'very well' with Putin if I were president"]. The Telegraph [U.K.] website.</ref><br />
<br />
Trump says the [[Iran]] deal is bad, but as president he would enforce it anyway.<br />
<br />
====Global warming====<br />
<br />
Trump does not believe in the [[Climate Change]] hysteria, once stating the "Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from [[Al Gore]]."<br />
<br />
====Gun control====<br />
<br />
Trump is against gun control.<ref name=Educ/><br />
<br />
====Homosexual agenda====<br />
<br />
For all practical purposes, Trump seems to be on the side of the [[homosexual agenda]]. He supports the creation of new law by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], as in a new right to [[homosexual marriage]], and declares it the "law of the land" even though Congress passed no such law.<br />
<br />
Trump has attended multiple [[same-sex marriage]] ceremonies, but has also said in the past that he opposes same-sex marriage. Trump's views are not yet known on other aspects of the [[homosexual agenda]], such as whether Trump would ban [[conversion therapy]] for minors as [[Chris Christie]] did. The [[Fox News Channel]] debate in August avoided these issues, but future debates will probably require Trump to declare his position.<br />
<br />
====Immigration====<br />
<br />
See the discussion in the introduction above. This is Trump's main campaign issue.<br />
<br />
====Political contributions====<br />
<br />
He has been criticized for his substantial contributions to [[Democrat]] lawmakers; the majority of those lawmakers are located in the states he resides in: New York and Florida. The amount he has donated since 2008 is $25,000, which is insignficant considering his wealth.<ref>Allin, Olivia (April 30, 2011). [http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Donald-Trump-calls-nations-leaders-stupid-people-and-blood-sucking-politicians/8104644 "OTRC: Donald Trump calls nation's leaders 'stupid people' and 'blood-sucking politicians'"]. OnTheRedCarpet [news]. Retrieved from ABC7 [KABC Television, Los Angeles] website.</ref><br />
<br />
====Tariffs====<br />
<br />
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, he stated that he supports a 25% tariff on Chinese goods.<ref name=Educ/><br />
<br />
====Vaccines====<br />
Trump believes that [[vaccines]] cause [[autism]],<ref>http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/253980-trump-links-vaccines-to-autism-epidemic</ref> and has argued against requiring that so many vaccines be given to infants.<br />
<br />
==Quotes from the 2016 campaign for President==<br />
*I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.<br />
*I’m using my own money. I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich.<br />
*Free trade is terrible. Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people. But we have stupid people.<br />
*Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody. Within our military, I will find the General Patton, or I will find General MacArthur, I will find the right guy.<br />
*I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have [[Mexico]] pay for that wall.<br />
<br />
==Quotes from Twitter==<br />
* "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (August 6, 2012, 1:23 pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref><br />
* "This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (January 1, 2014, 4:39pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/418542137899491328 "This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref><br />
* "It’s amazing how people can talk about me but I’m not allowed to talk about them."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (November 13, 2012, 12:23pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/268449146711703553 "It’s amazing how people can talk about me but I’m not allowed to talk about them."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref><br />
<br />
==Other quotes==<br />
* "[T]he country is going to hell."<ref>Cassidy, Chris (March 19, 2015). [http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/03/country_is_going_to_hell_claims_donald_trump "'Country is going to hell,' claims Donald Trump"]. BostonHerald.com website.</ref><br />
* "We have no leader in this country.”<ref>Reisner, Hiram (April 22, 2011). [http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/donaldtrump-karlrove-gop-birther/2011/04/22/id/393742 "Trump: I'd just take Libyan oil"]. NewsMax website.</ref><br />
* "Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people."<ref>Pierce, Tony (April 29, 2011). [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/donald-trump-in-vegas-our-leaders-are-stupid-they-are-stupid-people.html "Donald Trump in Vegas: 'Our leaders are stupid; they are stupid people'"]. Los Angeles Times website/Top of the Ticket blog.</ref><br />
* "I can tell you I am [the 2012 Obama campaign's] worst nightmare."<ref>Mooney, Alexander (April 11, 2011). [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/trump-says-he-is-obama-campaigns-worst-nightmare/comment-page-6/ "Trump says he is Obama campaign's worst nightmare"]. Cable News Network website/politicalticker blog.</ref><br />
* "Obama has no solutions."<ref>Coz, Steve (August 19, 2012). [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-gibbs-fox-obama/2012/08/19/id/449050/ "Trump fires back at Obama campaign smear"]. Newsmax website/Newsfront.</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Donald Trump's religious views]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.trump.com Official website]<br />
* [http://shouldtrumprun.com/ Should Donald Run? Polling]<br />
* [http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/04/trump-explains-conversion-on-abortion.html Trump explains his pro-life conversion]<br />
* [https://www.donaldjtrump.com Donald Trump 2016 campaign website]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Trump, Donald}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Celebrities]] <br />
[[Category:Business People]]<br />
[[Category:Authors]]<br />
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]<br />
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal conservatism]]</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right-libertarianism&diff=1185458Right-libertarianism2015-12-05T02:41:55Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Right-libertarianism''' refers to a faction of [[libertarianism]] that strongly identifies with [[self-ownership]], the [[non-aggression principle]] (it is immoral to ''initiate'' acts of force against persons or property) and [[free market]] [[capitalism]] while holding the idea that [[social conservatism|socially conservative]] policies are the best, even if they are only enforced by the various states in the [[United States]]. Right-libertarians differ from other libertarians who consider sexual immorality, prostitution, drug abuse, and other immoral things to be exercises of liberty, though may differ from conservatives in how these behaviors are controlled or prohibited.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tucker_Carlson&diff=1185457Tucker Carlson2015-12-05T02:40:44Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: fixed odd typo</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson''' (born May 16, 1969) is an American [[conservative]] political anchor, pundit, and television personality who works for [[Fox News Channel]], who formerly co-hosted ''[[Crossfire]]'' on [[CNN]] and ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]] and who was one of the few conservative anchors on MSNBC before the network strengthened its progressive stance with its "Lean Forward" campaign.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Social_conservatism&diff=1185455Social conservatism2015-12-05T02:38:41Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Social conservatism''' refers to [[conservative]] values on non-fiscal matters, such as the promoting defense of marriage, opposition to [[abortion]], opposition to [[homosexuality]], and promoting common sense [[Christian]] values. The views of social conservatives and religious conservatives often overlap. <br />
<br />
Social conservatism can be contrasted with the marriage-destroying, homosexual-agenda pushing, [[atheistic]], baby-murdering social liberalism that the [[Democrat]] party is so fond of. [[Libertarian]]s also oppose social conservatism in some extent whenever social conservatism advocates [[government]] intervention for its goals. Some moderates and pragmatists within the Republican Party in the U.S. also believe some of the social conservative ideas, such as restrictions on contraceptives, are not practical in today's society. Neoconservatives, particularly those of the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] variety, oppose various forms of social conservatism. <br />
<br />
== Social conservative attributes ==<br />
<br />
A social conservative may be defined as one who regards as still valuable the ideals that have traditionally been regarded as central to the welfare of our society. Those who are socially conservative in Western society may be regarded as radical were they to promote their ideas in another society, such as Saudi Arabia.<br />
<br />
Those who believe in social conservatism would assert that it needs to be distinguished from mere fiscal conservatism. Social conservatives deplore the waste of public financial resources, but do not make the achievement of national wealth an aim to be divorced from the goal of enabling that wealth to benefit the people as a whole. <br />
<br />
The term "social [[conservative]]" might be used for one who holds to particular ideals but has no concept of promoting them in society at large. But generally social conservatives are conceptualized as regarding their views as worthy of being supported for the benefit of society as a whole. Thus they are concerned with the role of government, which is capable of either supporting or undermining the foundations on which society has been built. <br />
<br />
Some of the foregoing is adapted from material written by the present writer and posted on SocialConservatives.ca [http://www.socialconservatives.ca/].<br />
<br />
== Darwinism and antipathy towards social conservatism ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|225px| [[Charles Darwin]] ]] <br />
''See also:'' [[Evolution and liberalism]]). <br />
<br />
Most liberals/leftists tend to be evolutionists (see: [[Evolution and liberalism]]). <br />
<br />
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:<br />
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.<br />
<br />
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].<br />
<br />
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’<ref>[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]</ref>}}<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Conservative]]<br />
{{Conservatism}}</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Non-aggression_principle&diff=1185454Non-aggression principle2015-12-05T02:36:15Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: Created page with "The '''non-aggression principle''' is a moral principle prominent in libertarianism that states that it is immoral to initiate an act of force against a person or his prop..."</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''non-aggression principle''' is a moral principle prominent in [[libertarianism]] that states that it is immoral to initiate an act of force against a person or his property. This is usually considered the primary principle of the foundation of libertarianism, as libertarianism in general holds to the idea that anything that does not harm a person or his property is a just exercise of liberty, and is should be protected at all cost. The non-aggression principle calls for the rigorous self-defense of person and property and force can be used to counteract force, but the person abiding by this principle is never to initiate the force to begin with. <br />
<br />
In many different schools of libertarianism, taxation is considered theft and is thus considered an unjust act of force by the state, and it is believed in these schools that the state has a monopoly on this sort of force.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right-libertarianism&diff=1185453Right-libertarianism2015-12-05T02:29:45Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: a start</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Right-libertarianism''' refers to a faction of [[libertarianism]] that strongly identifies with [[self-ownership]], the [[non-aggression principle]] (it is immoral to ''initiate'' acts of force against persons or property) and [[free market]] [[capitalism]] while holding the idea that [[social conservatism|socially conservative]] policies are the best, even if they are only enforced by the various states in the [[United States]]. Right-libertarians differ from other libertarians who consider sexual immorality, prostitution, drug abuse, and other immoral things are exercises of liberty, though may differ from conservatives in how these behaviors are controlled or prohibited.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Hacnocteestlucet&diff=1185452User:Hacnocteestlucet2015-12-05T02:21:52Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: </p>
<hr />
<div>“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” — Alexis de Tocqueville</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Hacnocteestlucet&diff=1185451User:Hacnocteestlucet2015-12-05T02:21:19Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: “The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” — Alexis de Tocqueville</p>
<hr />
<div>“The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” — Alexis de Tocqueville</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tucker_Carlson&diff=1185450Tucker Carlson2015-12-05T02:18:49Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: brief new article from redlinks</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson''' (born May 16, 1969) is an American [[conservative]] political anchor, pundit, and television personality who works for [[Fox News Channel]], who formerly co-hosted ''[[Crossfire]]'' on [[CNN]] and ''Tucker'' on [[MSNBC]] and who was one of the few conservative anchors on MSNBC before the nation strengthened its progressive stance with its "Lean Forward" campaign.</div>Hacnocteestlucethttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crossfire&diff=1185449Crossfire2015-12-05T02:14:12Z<p>Hacnocteestlucet: Created page with "'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network CNN and was canceled twice due to low ratings. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Crossfire''''' was a debate program that aired on the liberal news network [[CNN]] and was canceled twice due to low ratings. The first iteration ran from 1982 until 2005, and the second iteration only ran from 2013-2014. CNN designed the show to have the premise that two liberals would debate two conservatives, and two guests would appear, one liberal and one conservative, hence the name ''Crossfire''. <br />
<br />
The original iteration of the show aired from 1982 until 2005 and throughout its run featured hosts such as [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Tucker Carlson]].<br />
<br />
Eight years after the original iteration of the show was canceled, it reappeared in 2013 with former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and atheist [[S.E. Cupp]] representing the [[conservative]] side of the debate and avowed communist [[Van Jones]] and [[Stephanie Cutter]] represented the [[liberal]] side. In July 2014, this iteration of the program ended and no talks have been made to bring the show back.</div>Hacnocteestlucet