Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-03-29T02:25:45Z

OllieB: Undo revision 971046 by GregG (talk) my information is cited and well known in the Chicago gay community

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961 in [[Kenya]]) was elected the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. He is the first known homosexual to become president, and has appointed more homosexuals to positions of senior authority than any other president.<ref>http://www.thedcpost.com/?p=7913</ref> Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

[[Gerald Celente]] one of America's finest trend forecasters, he predicted the fall of communism when liberals thought it would last forever and predicted the 2008 financial collapse when liberals thought everything was just fine. Calente says that if Barack Obama is reelected the economy will further crumble, leading to mass homelessness, food riots and turning our cities into disaster zones where kidnapping and ransom are the biggest industries. Real Americans, fed up with big government may revolt, but it at that point it may be too late. Around the world the situation will be even worse, with the "blackest of plagues" running rampant. <ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_mcgrath</ref>
==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. This story is likely a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives including the leadership of this site and brilliant business man [[Donald Trump]] AKA "The Donald" called for Obama to release his birth certificate he did on April 27. However most experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity. Another [[American Hero]] Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Phoenix, AZ conducted a criminal investigation of the Obama's eligibility which found that the "birth certificate" was a fake. This means Obama is not actually president.
The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine.<br> Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/] </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Mexico=====

In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort.

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out [[George W. Bush]]'s timetable to end the War in Iraq, which has been completed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

==Homosexuality==
Obama was a member of the "Down Low Club," or DLC, a sex club for closeted gay men involved in politics to meet without public knowledge. The club is based out of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), where Obama claims to worship. Notorious anti-white pastor Jeremiah Wright, head of the TUCC and Obama's spiritual mentor, is also head of the DLC's matchmaking services, as well as being in charge of maintaining the secrecy and the silence of its members.

While a state senator, Obama hired Reggie Love, a homosexual physical trainer, on to his Senate staff at a salary of $104,000 a year. Secret Service records show that Obama regularly went to Love's residence in Chicago for short, 15 minute visits. These visits were not long enough for any kind of real exercise, and Michelle Obama reportedly was uncomfortable with the "close" relationship the two men had.

Donald Young, the choir director for TUCC and an open homosexual, was a member of the DLC and reportedly had an intimate relationship with Obama. He was murdered, execution style, in December of 2007, a few months before Obama's presidential campaign got underway.

He, along with [[Rahm Emanuel]], are card-carrying members of a gay bathhouse called Man's Country, and have attended since 1996. Gay prostitute Larry Sinclair revealed details of drug use and illicit sex by Obama at a news conference during the 2008 campaign, and was soon after arrested on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden. [[Bill Frist]] and [[Deval Patrick]] have also been intimately linked to Obama.

<ref>http://www.thedcpost.com/?p=7913</ref>

==See also==

*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-03-29T01:32:17Z

OllieB:

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-03-29T01:23:02Z

OllieB: ==homosexuality== more info

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961 in [[Kenya]]) was elected the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. He is the first known homosexual to become president.<ref>http://www.thedcpost.com/?p=7913</ref> Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

[[Gerald Celente]] one of America's finest trend forecasters, he predicted the fall of communism when liberals thought it would last forever and predicted the 2008 financial collapse when liberals thought everything was just fine. Calente says that if Barack Obama is reelected the economy will further crumble, leading to mass homelessness, food riots and turning our cities into disaster zones where kidnapping and ransom are the biggest industries. Real Americans, fed up with big government may revolt, but it at that point it may be too late. Around the world the situation will be even worse, with the "blackest of plagues" running rampant. <ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_mcgrath</ref>
==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. This story is likely a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives including the leadership of this site and brilliant business man [[Donald Trump]] AKA "The Donald" called for Obama to release his birth certificate he did on April 27. However most experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity. Another [[American Hero]] Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Phoenix, AZ conducted a criminal investigation of the Obama's eligibility which found that the "birth certificate" was a fake. This means Obama is not actually president.
The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine.<br> Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/] </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Mexico=====

In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort.

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out [[George W. Bush]]'s timetable to end the War in Iraq, which has been completed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

==Homosexuality==
Obama was a member of the "Down Low Club," or DLC, a sex club for closeted gay men involved in politics to meet without public knowledge. The club is based out of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), where Obama claims to worship. Notorious anti-white pastor Jeremiah Wright, head of the TUCC and Obama's spiritual mentor, is also head of the DLC's matchmaking services, as well as being in charge of maintaining the secrecy and the silence of its members.

While a state senator, Obama hired Reggie Love, a homosexual physical trainer, on to his Senate staff at a salary of $104,000 a year. Secret Service records show that Obama regularly went to Love's residence in Chicago for short, 15 minute visits. These visits were not long enough for any kind of real exercise, and Michelle Obama reportedly was uncomfortable with the "close" relationship the two men had.

Donald Young, the choir director for TUCC and an open homosexual, was a member of the DLC and reportedly had an intimate relationship with Obama. He was murdered, execution style, in December of 2007, a few months before Obama's presidential campaign got underway.

He, along with [[Rahm Emanuel]], are card-carrying members of a gay bathhouse called Man's Country, and have attended since 1996. Gay prostitute Larry Sinclair revealed details of drug use and illicit sex by Obama at a news conference during the 2008 campaign, and was soon after arrested on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden. [[Bill Frist]] and [[Deval Patrick]] have also been intimately linked to Obama.

<ref>http://www.thedcpost.com/?p=7913</ref>

==See also==

*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-03-29T01:12:06Z

OllieB: /* Homosexuality */ more info

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961 in [[Kenya]]) was elected the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

[[Gerald Celente]] one of America's finest trend forecasters, he predicted the fall of communism when liberals thought it would last forever and predicted the 2008 financial collapse when liberals thought everything was just fine. Calente says that if Barack Obama is reelected the economy will further crumble, leading to mass homelessness, food riots and turning our cities into disaster zones where kidnapping and ransom are the biggest industries. Real Americans, fed up with big government may revolt, but it at that point it may be too late. Around the world the situation will be even worse, with the "blackest of plagues" running rampant. <ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_mcgrath</ref>
==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. This story is likely a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives including the leadership of this site and brilliant business man [[Donald Trump]] AKA "The Donald" called for Obama to release his birth certificate he did on April 27. However most experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity. Another [[American Hero]] Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Phoenix, AZ conducted a criminal investigation of the Obama's eligibility which found that the "birth certificate" was a fake. This means Obama is not actually president.
The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine.<br> Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/] </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Mexico=====

In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort.

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out [[George W. Bush]]'s timetable to end the War in Iraq, which has been completed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

==Homosexuality==
Obama was a member of the "Down Low Club," or DLC, a sex club for closeted gay men involved in politics to meet without public knowledge. The club is based out of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), where Obama claims to worship. Notorious anti-white pastor Jeremiah Wright, head of the TUCC and Obama's spiritual mentor, is also head of the DLC's matchmaking services, as well as being in charge of maintaining the secrecy and the silence of its members.

While a state senator, Obama hired Reggie Love, a homosexual physical trainer, on to his Senate staff at a salary of $104,000 a year. Secret Service records show that Obama regularly went to Love's residence in Chicago for short, 15 minute visits. These visits were not long enough for any kind of real exercise, and Michelle Obama reportedly was uncomfortable with the "close" relationship the two men had.

Donald Young, the choir director for TUCC and an open homosexual, was a member of the DLC and reportedly had an intimate relationship with Obama. He was murdered, execution style, in December of 2007, a few months before Obama's presidential campaign got underway.

He, along with [[Rahm Emanuel]], are card-carrying members of a gay bathhouse called Man's Country, and have attended since 1996. Larry Sinclair revealed details of drug use and illicit sex by Obama at a news conference during the 2008 campaign, and was soon after arrested on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden.

<ref>http://www.thedcpost.com/?p=7913</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Talk:Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?

2012-03-29T00:50:47Z

OllieB: /* Body Doubles */

==Body Doubles==
Castro was well known to have body doubles available in case of an emergency. Seeing as he was in such poor health a few years ago, and is now well enough to see the Pope, it is only logical to conclude that it probably isn't the same guy.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/dead-castros-body-double-looking-moderately-healthy/

[[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:29, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:The beard in the photos released today for the purported Fidel Castro is also slightly different from Castro's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:36, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::So you can't think of any seriously ill person who recovered somewhat in a mere six years? Sorry, this is daft. What evidence would it take to convince some people that Castro is still alive? Is there ''anything'' that won't be dismissed as a fake?

::People can shrink several inches as they age, by the way. Castro was 6'3" when he was young; Ratzinger is 5'7" NOW. And my beard is slightly different to how it was last week because I trimmed it on Saturday, like I do every week, to look smart in church. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:40, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, the Pope would have shrunk by more than Castro, I think. And do you think the shape of a nose changes from sloping slightly upward to sloping downward in just a few years?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::What I think is that the nose in these photos is exactly the same shape as the nose in a 2003 photo of Castro. As for the pope, as I said he is 5'7" ''now''. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:46, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Castro has a long history of using body doubles. It is unlikely that Havana would simply stop using them once he died. Or perhaps you think that the Cuban government wants Castro-lookalikes roaming the streets of Havana! Ridiculous! [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:50, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?

2012-03-29T00:29:47Z

OllieB: castro body doubles

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-03-29T00:18:41Z

OllieB: Added info on Obama homosexuality

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961 in [[Kenya]]) was elected the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

[[Gerald Celente]] one of America's finest trend forecasters, he predicted the fall of communism when liberals thought it would last forever and predicted the 2008 financial collapse when liberals thought everything was just fine. Calente says that if Barack Obama is reelected the economy will further crumble, leading to mass homelessness, food riots and turning our cities into disaster zones where kidnapping and ransom are the biggest industries. Real Americans, fed up with big government may revolt, but it at that point it may be too late. Around the world the situation will be even worse, with the "blackest of plagues" running rampant. <ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_mcgrath</ref>
==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. This story is likely a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives including the leadership of this site and brilliant business man [[Donald Trump]] AKA "The Donald" called for Obama to release his birth certificate he did on April 27. However most experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity. Another [[American Hero]] Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Phoenix, AZ conducted a criminal investigation of the Obama's eligibility which found that the "birth certificate" was a fake. This means Obama is not actually president.
The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine.<br> Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/] </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Mexico=====

In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort.

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out [[George W. Bush]]'s timetable to end the War in Iraq, which has been completed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

==Homosexuality==
Obama was a member of the "Down Low Club," or DLC, a sex club for closeted gay men involved in politics to meet without public knowledge. The club is based out of the Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama claims to worship.

He, along with [[Rahm Emanuel]], are card-carrying members of a gay bathhouse called Man's country, and have attended since 1996. Larry Sinclair revealed details of drug use and illicit sex by Obama at a news conference during the 2008 campaign, and was soon after arrested on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden.
<ref>http://www.thedcpost.com/?p=7913</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Joe Arpaio

2012-03-28T23:49:47Z

OllieB: Added info on birth cert. investigation

[[File:SheriffJoeArpaio-252x350.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Joe Arpaio''' is the current [[conservative]] [[sheriff]] of Maricopa County, [[Arizona]]. He is famous for being very tough on crime and illegal immigration. He has been attacked by the [[ACLU]] and the [[SPLC]] viciously because of his strong anti-illegal immigration stance. Arpaio became Sheriff of Maricopa County in 1992, and has been re-elected five times. In August, 1993, he started the nation’s largest "tent city" for convicted inmates. Two thousand convicted men and women serve their sentences in a canvas incarceration compound. <ref>[http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=sheriff_bio - Maricopa County Sheriff's Office]</ref>
In 2012, he and a group of volunteer investigators, working on their own dime, furnished convincing proof that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] deliberately forged his birth records in order to take the presidency. <ref>http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/</ref>

He is a frequent target of unsuccessful power grabs by federal officials uncomfortable with his belief in local law enforcement power.

== Official Biography ==
"You probably know him as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” a name given to him years ago by the media. It’s a name he certainly has earned as head of the nation’s third largest Sheriff’s Office which employs over 3000 people. But even before he became Sheriff in 1993, Joe Arpaio was one tough lawman. After serving in the [[U.S. Army]] from 1950 to 1953, and as a [[Washington, D.C.]], and [[Las Vegas]], NV, police officer for almost five years, Arpaio went on to build a federal law enforcement career and a reputation for fighting crime and drug trafficking around the world.

He began his career as a federal narcotics agent, establishing a stellar record in infiltrating drug organizations from Turkey to the Middle East to Mexico, Central, and South America to cities around the U.S. His expertise and success led him to top management positions around the world with the U.S. [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] (DEA). He concluded his remarkable 32-year federal career as head of the DEA for Arizona.

In 1992 Arpaio successfully campaigned to become the Sheriff of Maricopa County. Since then he has been reelected to an unprecedented five 4-year terms. During his tenure as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arpaio has consistently earned extraordinarily high public approval ratings.

With over four decades experience in law enforcement, Arpaio knows what the public wants, “The public is my boss,” he says, “so I serve the public.” He has served them well by establishing several unique programs.

Arpaio has over 10,000 inmates in his jail system. In August, 1993, he started the nation’s largest Tent City for convicted inmates. Two thousand convicted men and women serve their sentences in a canvas incarceration compound. It is a remarkable success story that has attracted the attention of government officials, presidential candidates, and media worldwide.

Of equal success and notoriety are his chain gangs, which contribute thousands of dollars of free labor to the community. The male chain gang, and the world’s first-ever female and juvenile chain gangs, clean streets, paint over graffiti, and bury the indigent in the county cemetery.
[[File:Arpaioamericastoughest.jpg|left|250px]]
Also impressive are the Sheriff’s get tough policies. For example, he banned smoking, coffee, movies, pornographic magazines, and unrestricted TV in all jails. He has the cheapest meals in the U.S. too. The average meal costs about 15 cents, and inmates are fed only twice daily, to cut the labor costs of meal delivery. He even stopped serving them salt and pepper to save tax payers $20,000 a year.

Another program Arpaio is very well-known for is the pink under shorts he makes all inmates wear. Years ago, when the Sheriff learned that inmates were stealing jailhouse white boxers, Arpaio had all inmate underwear dyed pink for better inventory control. The same is true for the Sheriff’s handcuffs. When they started disappearing, he ordered pink handcuffs as a replacement. And later, when the Sheriff learned the calming, psychological effects of the color pink—sheets, towels, socks— everything inmates wear, except for the old-fashioned black and white striped uniform, were dyed pink.

Arpaio has started another controversial program, the website [http://www.MCSO.org WWW.MCSO.org], so that all those arrested (about 300 per day) are recorded on the Sheriff’s website as they are booked and processed into jail. Just under a million hits daily come into the website, making it one of the most visible law enforcement sites on the World Wide Web.

In addition to these tough measures, the Sheriff has launched rehabilitative programs like “Hard Knocks High,” the only accredited high school under a Sheriff in an American jail, and ALPHA, an anti-substance-abuse program that has greatly reduced recidivism.

As chief law enforcement officer for the county, Arpaio continues to reduce crime with hard-hitting enforcement methods. His deputies and detectives have solved several high-profile murder cases, including nine child murders. The posse, whose ranks have increased to 3,000 members under Arpaio, is the nation’s largest volunteer posse. Posse men and women help in search and rescue and other traditional police work as well as in special operations like rounding up deadbeat parents, fighting prostitution, patrolling malls during holidays, and investigating animal cruelty complaints. The posse’s contributions are invaluable and essentially free to taxpayers.

No wonder Sheriff Arpaio has been profiled in over 2,000 U.S. and foreign newspapers, magazines, and TV news programs. His leadership and the excellent work of his staff have catapulted the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office into the ranks of elite law enforcement agencies.

On a personal note, Sheriff Arpaio and his wife Ava have been married for over 51 years and have two children, both residing in the Phoenix area. The Arpaios have four grandchildren. His mother was against [[abortion]], she died giving birth to Joe. <ref>[http://twitter.com/#!/RealSheriffJoe/status/17333422015913984 Twitter feed on abortion]</ref>

Arpaio looks forward to many more years as Sheriff of Maricopa County." <ref>[http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=sheriff_bio Maricopa Sheriff; Sheriff's Biography]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Arpaio, Joe}}
[[Category: Arizona]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]
[[Category: United States Elected Officials]]

Geisha

2012-03-27T15:27:25Z

OllieB:

[[Image:Geisha SBMOA.jpg|right|140px]]
'''Geisha''' is a traditional [[Japanese]] female entertainer, whose skills include performing various arts. They usually began their training at a very young age. They learn the serving tea ceremony, conversation, literature and poetry, playing traditional instruments and dancing, among other skills.

Geisha always wear [[kimono]] and most of them live in traditional geisha houses called ''okiya''. At present there are just a few.

The movie ''My Geisha'' (1962 - Director: Jack Cardiff, Starring: Shirley MacLaine, Yves Montand, Yoko Tani, Tatsu Saito and Edward G. Robinson) was filmed in Japan.

''Memoirs of a Geisha'' by Arthur Golden, published in 1997, is the fictional true confessions of one of Japan's most celebrated geisha (Mineko Iwasaki).

''Geisha have their roots in female entertainers such as the Saburuko of the 7th century and the Shirabyoshi, who emerged around the early 13th century. They would perform for the nobility and some even became concubines to the emperor... But like their male counterpart the [[samurai]], the geisha and her world continue to fascinate people around the world as part of their image of a mysterious and timeless Japan.'' <ref>[http://www.japan-zone.com/culture/geisha.shtml Geisha]</ref>

Pro-prostitution academics have attempted to reinterpret the role of the geisha as a "high-class" prostitute, in direct conflict with the historical evidence, in order to justify legalizing vice.
== See also ==
[[Image:Geisha MacLaine.jpg|right|140px]]
* [[Aikido]]
* [[Kyoto]]

==External Links==

* [http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2102.html Geisha basic information]
* [http://www.immortalgeisha.com/ Immortal Geisha news]

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

[[Image:Geisha kimono.png]]

[[Category:Japan]]

Rapture

2012-03-27T15:22:43Z

OllieB: Removed weasel words

Within Protestant theology, the '''Rapture''' is an event involving believers of Jesus Christ that will take place in the [[Last Days]]. Outside of theological contexts, ''rapture'' is also a noun meaning ''"a state of being carried away by overwhelming emotion"''.

==Meaning of the term==
The word ''rapture'' is not found in the Bible, but taken from the Greek word "harpazo" (pronounced har-pad'-zo). The term is found 13 times in the New Testament (including Revelation 12:5 which addresses Jesus' ascent described in the Book of Acts). According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, "Harpazo" means "to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)." To this effect, most modern Christian ministries{{fact}} imply that "rapture" means "harpazo," which specifically points to being "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

Others have derived the concept of the rapture from the Greek word έκσταση, which is translated as ''ekstasi''.

==Origin of the doctrine==
There are several theories on the origin of the rapture.<ref>Sanders, E.F. [http://www.theologue.org/origins.html ''The Origin of the Pretribulational Rapture Theory''] (n.d.)</ref> Most of these are dated from the late 18th century onwards, but the concept was most popularly explained by [[John Nelson Darby]], a mid-19th century preacher.

==Biblical References and Exegesis==
John Nelson Darby interpreted 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 as the occasion on which future believers in Jesus Christ will be suddenly taken away prior to the events of the war of Armageddon and the ushering in of the Millennial Kingdom:
{{Bible quote|But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.' For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be ''caught up'' together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.|book=1Thessalonians|chap=4|verses=13-18|version=KJV}}

===Conditions that Could Precede the Rapture===
Some Evangelical commentators{{fact}} suggest that the following events need to occur prior to the Rapture taking place:
* Lawless conditions in the world, as in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:36-41)
* The rise of a powerful government in Europe with its origins in the Roman Empire (Daniel 9, Revelation 13)
* The rise of powerful countries to the north, south, and east of Israel (Daniel 11)
* Israel living in peace with its neighbors (Ezekiel 38)
* A peace treaty between Israel and the Arabs for seven years (Daniel 9)
* The commencement of the rebuilding of the Jewish temple on it's original site in Jerusalem.

The website 'Rapture Ready' maintains an index of how close the world apparently is to the Rapture.<ref>[http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html Rapture Ready]</ref>

===Relationship with Tribulationism===
There is some debate within dispensationalist/tribulationist circles over whether the Rapture will occur before, during or after the reign of the [[Antichrist]], but the original reference by St [[Paul]] that "we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air" (at I Thessalonians 4:17) clearly dates it to the time of the [[Second Coming]], and does not suggest in any way that it will result in Christians being spared in advance the horrors of the [[Last Times]], as is sometimes proposed. Matthew 24:29-35 seems to favor the post-tribulation position, however:

{{Bible quote|Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=29-35|version=KJV}}

==Predictions Concerning Timing ==
Throughout history, many people have tried to determine when the rapture will happen, mainly by analyzing the Bible and correlating what it says to events that were happening around them. A recent analysis by Harold Camping, a radio evangelist and founder of eBible Fellowship<ref>[http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/ Bible Fellowship]</ref> computed May 21, 2011 as the day of the rapture, although he uses a drastically different calendar for dating his events that support his view and states that the tribulation began in 1988.

The practice of date setting has drawn criticism in some circles. Critics have pointed to verses such as Mark 13:32 and [[Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Matthew 24:36]], which indicate that no one knows the date of the rapture except for God Himself. Furthermore, Jesus predicted that "many false prophets will arise and deceive many people" regarding the date of the rapture ([[Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Matthew 24:11]]). Advocates of date setting (such as Harold Camping) have interpreted these verses in ways different to their isolated literal expression.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[Midmillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Postmillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Premillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Pretribulation rapture]]
* [[Posttribulation rapture]]

==External Llinks==
*[http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/raptured_catholics.htm Are Catholics into the Rapture?]
*[http://www.nyu.edu/fas/projects/vcb/ChristianMedia/prophecy_premdisp.html Prophecy and the End-Times]

==Sources==
* Armstrong, K., ''The Battle for God'' (Harper Perennial, 2000)
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Racism

2012-03-27T15:06:06Z

OllieB: /* Support for Racism */

[[File:Roma camp Lille France 2010.jpg|thumb|300px|Roma children at an encampment in Lille. France has deported many Gypsy migrants to Bulgaria and Romania in 2010.]]
'''Racism''' is [[prejudice]] and [[discrimination]] based on [[race]].
An example is a claim that of inferiority or superiority based on the color of one's skin. Another example was the [[Jim Crow]] laws; one more: [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] was accused of racism for ordering closure of 300 illegal gypsy camps and expulsion of Roma after riot. <ref> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298690/Sarkozy-accused-racism-ordering-closure-illegal-gypsy-camps-riot.html Sarkozy accused of racism for ordering closure of 300 illegal gypsy camps and expulsion of Roma after riot.] </ref> Sarkozy was behind the controversial measure to deport Roma gypsies, breaching European immigration laws. European Union officials accused Sarkozy of "fanning xenophobia " in his move to deport the Roma. <ref> [http://digitaljournal.com/article/320841 French President Nicolas Sarkozy, 'too many foreigners in France'.] </ref>

<blockquote>
"too many foreigners in France." Nicolas Sarkozy. <ref> [http://digitaljournal.com/article/320841 [[Ibidem]]] </ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has come to mean the hatred of another person because of the color of his or her skin, or perceived difference in origin. The doctrine of [[substantive due process]] in United States constitutional law can be used to invalidate racist laws. Alternately, the [[Equal Protection|equal protection]] clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] can be used to do the same. ''See e.g.'' [[Brown v. Board of Education]], 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[[category:psychology]]

==Support for Racism==
Liberals attempt to divide the races into different social classes through the use of [[racial quotas]] and [[affirmative action]]. While most Americans look forward to a "post-racial America," where race is not a factor in a person's success, liberal interests demand that people's success depend on government intervention, and so attempt to artificially affect hiring and admissions decisions in order to keep certain people dependent on and grateful to the government for their livelihoods.

It is unknown why liberals feel the need to interfere in the lives and careers of hard-working African Americans, but it is likely due to a condescending attitude towards the African American community, which boasts some of the highest church attendance rates in the country and is therefore directly opposed to the liberal secularist agenda.

==Opposition to Racism==
[[Laird Wilcox]] wrote:
*There is a [[humanist]] anti-racism that focuses on [[reconciliation]] and [[healing]], that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of [[dossier]]s, [[spies]], specious [[lawsuit]]s, [[disinformation]], and that recognizes the [[right]]s of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all [[human being]]s. ... On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and [[punishment]], that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out [[special rights]] for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, [[censor]] and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages [[law enforcement]] scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged [[values]], opinions and beliefs.<ref>''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Laird Wilcox, Editorial Research Service, 1999, pg. 3. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref>

==Support==
Creativity, which is espoused by the [[Creativity Movement]], is an [[atheistic]] white racist movement.<ref name="Atheistic">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=HB1wyFPRGm4C&pg=PA23&dq=atheism+white+supremacy&hl=en&ei=Re-OTfbHHuuD0QHOycm1Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=atheistic&f=false|title =The new white nationalism in America: its challenge to integration|publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]|quote=For instance, Ben Klassen, founder of the atheistic World Church of the Creator and the author of ''The White Man's Bible'', discusses Christianity extensively in his writings and denounces religion that has brought untold horror into the world and divided the white race.|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref><ref name="Religion">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=RonIunZ521sC&pg=PA247&dq=atheism+white+supremacy&hl=en&ei=u_OOTaGaM6Xi0gHJztygCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false|title =Contemporary voices of white nationalism in America|publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]|quote=World Church of the Creator, an organization that espouses an atheistic and white supremacist religious philosophy known as Creativity.|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref><ref name="Atheism">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=rBgn3xB75ZcC&pg=PA493&dq=competing+atheistic+white+racist+movement&hl=en&ei=5uWOTeSkCamw0QH7m92bCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=competing%20atheistic%20white%20racist%20movement&f=false|title =The World's Religions: Continuities and Transformations|publisher = [[Taylor & Francis]]|quote=A competing atheistic or panthestic white racist movement also appeared, which included the Church of the Creator/ Creativity (Gardell 2003: 129–134).|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Nazism]]
*[[Reverse racism]]
*[[Evolutionary racism]]
*[[Racist remarks]]

==External links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/racism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Racism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Liberal Traits]]

Racism

2012-03-27T15:00:24Z

OllieB: /* Support for Racism */

[[File:Roma camp Lille France 2010.jpg|thumb|300px|Roma children at an encampment in Lille. France has deported many Gypsy migrants to Bulgaria and Romania in 2010.]]
'''Racism''' is [[prejudice]] and [[discrimination]] based on [[race]].
An example is a claim that of inferiority or superiority based on the color of one's skin. Another example was the [[Jim Crow]] laws; one more: [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] was accused of racism for ordering closure of 300 illegal gypsy camps and expulsion of Roma after riot. <ref> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298690/Sarkozy-accused-racism-ordering-closure-illegal-gypsy-camps-riot.html Sarkozy accused of racism for ordering closure of 300 illegal gypsy camps and expulsion of Roma after riot.] </ref> Sarkozy was behind the controversial measure to deport Roma gypsies, breaching European immigration laws. European Union officials accused Sarkozy of "fanning xenophobia " in his move to deport the Roma. <ref> [http://digitaljournal.com/article/320841 French President Nicolas Sarkozy, 'too many foreigners in France'.] </ref>

<blockquote>
"too many foreigners in France." Nicolas Sarkozy. <ref> [http://digitaljournal.com/article/320841 [[Ibidem]]] </ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has come to mean the hatred of another person because of the color of his or her skin, or perceived difference in origin. The doctrine of [[substantive due process]] in United States constitutional law can be used to invalidate racist laws. Alternately, the [[Equal Protection|equal protection]] clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] can be used to do the same. ''See e.g.'' [[Brown v. Board of Education]], 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[[category:psychology]]

==Support for Racism==
Liberals attempt to divide the races into different social classes through the use of [[racial quotas]] and [[affirmative action]]. While most Americans look forward to a "post-racial America," where race is not a factor in a person's success, liberal interests demand that people's success depend on government intervention, and so attempt to artificially affect hiring and admissions decisions in order to keep certain people dependent on and grateful to the government for their livelihoods.

==Opposition to Racism==
[[Laird Wilcox]] wrote:
*There is a [[humanist]] anti-racism that focuses on [[reconciliation]] and [[healing]], that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of [[dossier]]s, [[spies]], specious [[lawsuit]]s, [[disinformation]], and that recognizes the [[right]]s of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all [[human being]]s. ... On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and [[punishment]], that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out [[special rights]] for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, [[censor]] and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages [[law enforcement]] scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged [[values]], opinions and beliefs.<ref>''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Laird Wilcox, Editorial Research Service, 1999, pg. 3. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref>

==Support==
Creativity, which is espoused by the [[Creativity Movement]], is an [[atheistic]] white racist movement.<ref name="Atheistic">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=HB1wyFPRGm4C&pg=PA23&dq=atheism+white+supremacy&hl=en&ei=Re-OTfbHHuuD0QHOycm1Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=atheistic&f=false|title =The new white nationalism in America: its challenge to integration|publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]|quote=For instance, Ben Klassen, founder of the atheistic World Church of the Creator and the author of ''The White Man's Bible'', discusses Christianity extensively in his writings and denounces religion that has brought untold horror into the world and divided the white race.|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref><ref name="Religion">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=RonIunZ521sC&pg=PA247&dq=atheism+white+supremacy&hl=en&ei=u_OOTaGaM6Xi0gHJztygCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false|title =Contemporary voices of white nationalism in America|publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]|quote=World Church of the Creator, an organization that espouses an atheistic and white supremacist religious philosophy known as Creativity.|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref><ref name="Atheism">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=rBgn3xB75ZcC&pg=PA493&dq=competing+atheistic+white+racist+movement&hl=en&ei=5uWOTeSkCamw0QH7m92bCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=competing%20atheistic%20white%20racist%20movement&f=false|title =The World's Religions: Continuities and Transformations|publisher = [[Taylor & Francis]]|quote=A competing atheistic or panthestic white racist movement also appeared, which included the Church of the Creator/ Creativity (Gardell 2003: 129–134).|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Nazism]]
*[[Reverse racism]]
*[[Evolutionary racism]]
*[[Racist remarks]]

==External links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/racism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Racism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Liberal Traits]]

Racism

2012-03-27T14:59:56Z

OllieB: /* Support for Racism */

[[File:Roma camp Lille France 2010.jpg|thumb|300px|Roma children at an encampment in Lille. France has deported many Gypsy migrants to Bulgaria and Romania in 2010.]]
'''Racism''' is [[prejudice]] and [[discrimination]] based on [[race]].
An example is a claim that of inferiority or superiority based on the color of one's skin. Another example was the [[Jim Crow]] laws; one more: [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] was accused of racism for ordering closure of 300 illegal gypsy camps and expulsion of Roma after riot. <ref> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298690/Sarkozy-accused-racism-ordering-closure-illegal-gypsy-camps-riot.html Sarkozy accused of racism for ordering closure of 300 illegal gypsy camps and expulsion of Roma after riot.] </ref> Sarkozy was behind the controversial measure to deport Roma gypsies, breaching European immigration laws. European Union officials accused Sarkozy of "fanning xenophobia " in his move to deport the Roma. <ref> [http://digitaljournal.com/article/320841 French President Nicolas Sarkozy, 'too many foreigners in France'.] </ref>

<blockquote>
"too many foreigners in France." Nicolas Sarkozy. <ref> [http://digitaljournal.com/article/320841 [[Ibidem]]] </ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has come to mean the hatred of another person because of the color of his or her skin, or perceived difference in origin. The doctrine of [[substantive due process]] in United States constitutional law can be used to invalidate racist laws. Alternately, the [[Equal Protection|equal protection]] clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] can be used to do the same. ''See e.g.'' [[Brown v. Board of Education]], 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[[category:psychology]]

==Support for Racism==
Liberals attempt to divide the races into different social classes through the use of [racial quotas] and [affirmative action]. While most Americans look forward to a "post-racial America," where race is not a factor in a person's success, liberal interests demand that people's success depend on government intervention, and so attempt to artificially affect hiring and admissions decisions in order to keep certain people dependent on and grateful to the government for their livelihoods.

==Opposition to Racism==
[[Laird Wilcox]] wrote:
*There is a [[humanist]] anti-racism that focuses on [[reconciliation]] and [[healing]], that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of [[dossier]]s, [[spies]], specious [[lawsuit]]s, [[disinformation]], and that recognizes the [[right]]s of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all [[human being]]s. ... On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and [[punishment]], that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out [[special rights]] for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, [[censor]] and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages [[law enforcement]] scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged [[values]], opinions and beliefs.<ref>''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Laird Wilcox, Editorial Research Service, 1999, pg. 3. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref>

==Support==
Creativity, which is espoused by the [[Creativity Movement]], is an [[atheistic]] white racist movement.<ref name="Atheistic">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=HB1wyFPRGm4C&pg=PA23&dq=atheism+white+supremacy&hl=en&ei=Re-OTfbHHuuD0QHOycm1Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=atheistic&f=false|title =The new white nationalism in America: its challenge to integration|publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]|quote=For instance, Ben Klassen, founder of the atheistic World Church of the Creator and the author of ''The White Man's Bible'', discusses Christianity extensively in his writings and denounces religion that has brought untold horror into the world and divided the white race.|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref><ref name="Religion">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=RonIunZ521sC&pg=PA247&dq=atheism+white+supremacy&hl=en&ei=u_OOTaGaM6Xi0gHJztygCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false|title =Contemporary voices of white nationalism in America|publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]|quote=World Church of the Creator, an organization that espouses an atheistic and white supremacist religious philosophy known as Creativity.|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref><ref name="Atheism">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=rBgn3xB75ZcC&pg=PA493&dq=competing+atheistic+white+racist+movement&hl=en&ei=5uWOTeSkCamw0QH7m92bCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=competing%20atheistic%20white%20racist%20movement&f=false|title =The World's Religions: Continuities and Transformations|publisher = [[Taylor & Francis]]|quote=A competing atheistic or panthestic white racist movement also appeared, which included the Church of the Creator/ Creativity (Gardell 2003: 129–134).|accessdate = 2011–03–27}}</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Nazism]]
*[[Reverse racism]]
*[[Evolutionary racism]]
*[[Racist remarks]]

==External links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/racism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Racism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Liberal Traits]]

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-03-27T14:52:10Z

OllieB: /* What a creationist would reply */

.In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

The 15 Questions for evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] and there are 15 links on that page for those interested in further study.

Creation Ministries International has issued three response web pages to evolutionists concerning their replies to the 15 questions which can be found at these web locations:

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1–3]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-2 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15].

In addition, Creation Ministries International is in the midst of releasing a series of educational videos designed to rebut evolutionist responses to the 15 questions for evolutionists:

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=f4hTmRKz8rc 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- General objections]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=IizKNWUrMwU 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 1]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=e7CXwh46dX0 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 2]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=q1fxW1eTjZc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 3]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=WK9t8pmVKdc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 4]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=FvSH3wbAiRE 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 5]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=OVm8lSFjaa8 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 6]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=sxoa-L7KFGM 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 7]

Fan responses to evolutionist objections:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c Reddit atheist challenge - 15 questions evolutionists hate: Live dialogue]

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Agreed, the origin of life is a biochemical question--not really an evolutionary biology one. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:36, 21 January 2012 (EST)

::::That said, most of modern biology consists of biochemical questions, including the major mechanisms underlying evolution, so the question on the origin of life is not an inappropriate one here. To answer it, I must first address an idea that I've heard quoted by creationists addressing this question in the links provided by User:Conservative. That is the common misconception that the current scientific consensus suggests that life started as self-replicating polypeptides. In light of evidence uncovered in the past couple decades, this hypothesis is now considered highly unlikely; the process that would become "life" was likely already started before the "primordial amino acid soup" came into play. Self-replicating polydeoxyribonucleotides (DNA strands), are also considered an unlikely because of the chemical characteristics of DNA. Self-replicating strands of RNA, on the other hand, can be randomly generated in a laboratory using common, non-biological, reagents. This is a far-cry from the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment (their experimental conditions turned out to be a wildly incorrect reproduction of the early Earth), that found organic molecules in a solution zapped with electricity. Besides, complex organic molecules seem to form spontaneously (albeit in trace amounts) wherever the right elemental ingredients are present; that's the age-old rule of organic chemistry, if a side reaction '''can''' happen, it '''will''' happen to some degree.

::::Life is chemistry, very complex chemistry, but it is still chemistry. The components of a cell consist of biomolecules behaving in a chemical way (drugs are designed to take advantage of this fact). Barring any philosophical discussion on the meaning of life (for the last time, '''the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42'''), the purpose of a cell (or a complex organism consisting of a vast network of cells) is to reproduce. Self-reproduction is one of the defining traits of life. Ribonucleotides (present in trace amounts wherever the ingredients are found) will spontaneously form 5' to 3' polymers in a warm, reducing, aqueous environment; such as that found around the edges of a hot-spring (assuming a low oxygen atmosphere, which is unanimously suggested for the early Earth by geological data), or even an oceanic thermal vent. That one or more of these oligomers would have the enzymatic capacity to self-replicate is extremely plausible. When considering the scale (an entire planet), it becomes probable.

::::How these self-reproducing RNA strands started conspiring with amino acids, became compartmentalized in phospholipids, and then started using a DNA template, is still largely unknown. It is thought that these changes occurred in the order I just mentioned because that is the most chemically plausible order of events; although a plausible scenario is still very far from an established theory. As more evidence becomes available, as more experiments are done, and as geology reveals more information about the chemistry of the early Earth, it is likely that the scientific community will arrive at more of a consensus regarding the origin of life. Obviously, nobody was there to witness the origin of life and, unless the NSF allocates grant money towards a 1981 DeLorean, a conjectural consensus (that is well-supported by all the evidence) will be the closest that science can come to providing an answer to this question. This does not mean that scientists "don't know"; in the absence of first-hand observation,an inference from evidence is the closest that the scientific process can come to explaining anything.

::::There is evidence that much of the Old Testament (after Genesis) is a historically accurate, if poetically embellished (as all histories were at the time), account of bronze-age Jewish history. Archaeological evidence supports this and so science supports this. However, it is a non sequitur to conclude that because ''some'' Old Testament stories are grounded in historical fact that ''all'' Old Testament stories are literally true--even St. Paul admits that this is a matter of faith (and open to interpretation), not evidence. To draw an analogy, Livy, a Roman historian, wrote a lengthy account of the history of the Roman people. Much of this account is very historically accurate and is supported as such by archaeological evidence. However, it is very clearly illogical to conclude that because Livy's historical narrative is largely true, his references to the Roman gods playing a hand in these events must be true as well. Similarly science, which by definition can ''only'' rely on empirical evidence, must search outside of scripture for evidence regarding the origin of life and draw conclusions based on evidence alone. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 03:24, 25 January 2012 (EST)

::::: Very well argued. Can you provide a link to something showing that RNA can be randomly generated in a lab? It'd be interesting to read. Thanks :) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:18, 9 March 2012 (EST)

:::::::[http://www.horizonpress.com/cimb/v/v2/v2n102.pdf Happily]! --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:42, 9 March 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The only experiments done to test these ASSUMPTIONS were fatally flawed by bad data about the so-called "ancient Earth." Not even evolutionists take them seriously now. If this were true, new species should be rising from the ocean every day, but we see none. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:39, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::TonyPark is right again! There is no such thing as the "DNA code" (at least Dan Brown hasn't published it yet). A cell is a biochemical system, similar to how a car is a mechanical system. Actually, if examined closely, most biochemical systems are remarkably mechanical in function. The set of biomolecular actions in any cell, while they may seem quite complex, are actually quite predictable once they are well understood. This is one of the driving principles in modern cell biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, pharmacology, medicine (notably oncology), bioinformatics, and every other field (there are hundreds) that deals with functional genomics, proteomics, or metabolism.

::Genes are referred to as "information", even studied as information (bioinformatics), because that is a convenient way to model and discuss a very complex system. The article on [[genes]] here at Conservapedia is actually pretty well written (when I have time, I do want to tweak a couple minor points in that article, but that is something I will discuss on that article's talk page), I would encourage anybody reading this argument to read that article first if they are unfamiliar with the terms I am going to use.

::In the context of this question (and the "answers" posted by CMI), "DNA code" is a very arbitrarily defined term. The trouble is that the interactions between DNA and the biomolecular mediators of cellular homeostasis (the processes that maintain the tightly controlled cellular microenvironment) are quite complex. It is a gross oversimplification (in fact, it is incorrect) to say that DNA ''only'' functions as a "template" to be transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein. It is true that a similar-sounding term, "genetic code", refers to triplets of bases (codons) encoding for particular amino acids in a protein product. However, there is a lot more that goes into regulating cell processes than blind protein production. Gene expression is a very tightly regulated process ensuring that only the right cells express the right genes at the right time (for a good example of when this goes wrong, see [[cancer]]). This regulation is highly mechanical. To avoid launching into a lengthy discussion of gene regulatory mechanisms, I will leave the point at that.

::Accordingly, I will give the authors of this question the benefit of the doubt and interpret "DNA code" to mean the sum of homeostatic regulation via direct and indirect biomolecular interactions with DNA. On the whole, this question is so broad in scope that it ''is'' impossible to properly answer without several thousand pages of text. To illustrate this point, I have a five volume reference book on my bookshelf that summarizes most of the human biomolecular signalling pathways that were known when it was published (2006); in total, the book is 5300 pages long. Given the pace with which biomedical scientists are unraveling the human interactome, a 2011 edition would need to be '''at least''' twice as long (and require a giant team of very masochistic editors). The simple fact here is that '''every''' chemical process within the cell can (and does) elicit some downstream effect on gene regulation. Therefore, one cannot even ''functionally'' explain the "DNA code" without also explaining every last scrap of chemistry that goes on in a cell. Similarly, thoroughly explaining its origin would require tracing the phylogeny of several hundred thousand individual processes.

::While creationists may rejoice at the "impossibility" of this question, science is not at all clueless about the evolutionary origin of many of the more central parts in this system. Quite the contrary actually. For instance, the evolutionary origin of introns in eukaryotic genes from ancient self-splicing bacterial transposable elements (which seem to have been retroviral in origin) is practically an air-tight case. The highly conserved sequence homology among members of the most common families of transcription factors (proteins that directly interact with DNA to regulate genes) also strongly hints at the existence of a common root at the base of each family "tree". An even better example is the remarkably high level of homology between the transcriptional machinery in all extant lineages of life. Similarly, there is the striking homology in translational machinery. In fact, sequencing of ribosomal RNAs (which are under quite a bit of selective pressure to stay '''very''' static) is a very accurate way to estimate ancestral relationships--oh, and for most clades examined, the "newfangled" rRNA data suggests ancestral relationships that are very similar to (and in plants and animals, often identical to) those suggested by older techniques based on phenotype. All the examples that I just gave are evidence of the common descent of the gene regulatory / expression machinery. Clearly, without going back to the origin of life itself (which is an impossibility), explaining the evolutionary origin of the obscure <s>creationist invention</s> concept that is the "DNA code" is fundamentally impossible. However, just because scientists can not precisely trace every last bit of cellular machinery all the way back to the origin of life (which is the rather disingenuous implication of this question), does not mean that that the scientific community is at a loss for evidence from which to make logical inferences about its approximate naturalistic origin.

::Like question number 1, question 2 ignores the fundamental principles of the scientific process; conclusions and hypotheses regarding an un-observable process must strictly rely on logical consideration of the available evidence. The sound practice of science (which, I might add, is meticulously ingrained in any scientist-in-training and '''very''' strictly enforced by peer review) requires that evidence is objectively interpreted as only speaking for itself, independent of presupposition or ideological dogma. Science is not about searching for evidence in support of a particular hypothesis; in fact, it is about seeking evidence which contradicts the working hypothesis, so that the working hypothesis may be further refined. It is for this simple reason that "creation science", by relying on the '''presupposition''' of divine creation, is not science. A scientific theory, such as evolution or relativity is not a presupposition (as will be claimed in a couple later questions), rather it is a logical paradigm that is compatible with the hypotheses suggested by the available evidence. Scientific theories are, by definition, fluid logical paradigms; when the evidence suggests a paradoxical conclusion, the theory (not the conclusion) is adjusted to accommodate the new finding. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:41, 25 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The existence of the four genetic bases, AGTC, and the fact that they fit together like puzzle pieces with the correct counterpart molecule, is evidence for intelligent design. If DNA were truly random, we would see adenine binding with guanine, thiamine and cytosine in roughly equal numbers, but instead there is a non-random pattern that indicates an intelligent creator. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:43, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:18, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yet another very well-worded answer. Mr. Park, you are a tough act to follow!

::Seriously, what is the deal with the creationist obsession with mutating genes? Seriously, the idea that changing the genes is a major driving force of evolution pre-dates the understanding of how genes work. There are plenty of other ('''much''' more common and interesting) ways to generate phenotypic variation within a population. In the past three decades, advances in population genetics, combined with a veritable revolution in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology, have demonstrated that. In other words, referencing the breakthroughs that have resulted from the new-found understanding of the molecular mechanisms of evolution, '''"This ain't your daddy's Darwin!"'''

::But first, because the question insists, I will address the boring stuff.

::Genes duplicate, entire sections of chromosomes, and sometimes even whole chromosomes, or sets of chromosomes, can be duplicated or even fused. Sometimes, just a portion of a gene is duplicated, or maybe even swapped with a part from a different gene. On a smaller scale, errors in DNA replication, among other factors, can cause single base pairs in DNA to be changed (this is called a "single nucleotide polymorphism" or a SNP--pronounced "Snip"), deleted, or inserted. Sometimes, it's a transposable element (chunks of DNA that like to move around in the genome--a lot) that inserts in the middle of an exon. Or maybe even an endogenous retrovirus that's still intact enough to move around finding itself in between two enhancer elements for an essential gene. Chromosomes are not static structures either. High school biology was only partially right when they taught you that recombination occurs between homologous chromosomes during meiosis; as it turns out, non-homologous chromosomes trade parts too sometimes (quite often, actually, on an evolutionary time scale). In short, on the scale of hundreds of millions of years, the genome has more in common with Mardis Gras in New Orleans than it does with a leather-bound book.

::On the genomic level, when and where mutations occur is largely random. The vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever on phenotype. However, when a mutation does affect phenotype, whether or not it survives to be present in future populations is not random. Any genomic change that increases an organism's ability to reproduce efficiently, will gradually become increasingly prevalent in subsequent generations because the more-efficiently reproducing individuals generate more offspring. Alternatively, if a variation impairs the ability of an individual to reproduce efficiently, then that variation will become less prevalent in subsequent generations because the individuals carrying it will produce proportionately fewer offspring. This seemingly obvious observation '''is''' natural selection. To say that a trait is "selected against" simply means that it has a deleterious effect on the relative reproductive potential of the individuals carrying it.

::Random mutations generate novel allelic variations within a population, and the sieve of reproduction keeps the randomly-occurring harmful variations from being present in future populations while at the same time amplifying the number of individuals carrying favorable variations. The net result of this process is anything but random.

::That said, ecosystems change, natural disasters happen, geological events happen, new organisms colonize an ecosystem and disrupt the food chain. An allele that was beneficial in one generation, may be quite deleterious four generations later. But, when that happens, selective pressure shifts and individuals carrying the now-harmful allele are out-reproduced by individuals who are better adapted to the new conditions--thus the allelic composition of the population shifts again. Repeating a similar cycle over hundreds of generations will result in a population that is, by and large, phenotypically different (sometimes quite dramatically) from the original population. Repeat the cycle over tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of generations, and add in a whole host of other possible random events that favor or cause a redistribution of allele frequencies over the generations, and the end population will have changed drastically from the original population.

::Now for the fun stuff. The regions of important genes that encode for important proteins are under quite a bit of selective pressure to change as little as possible over the generations; a random mutation in one those regions would be so harmful to the reproductive ability of the individuals carrying it that it is not likely to persist in a population for more than a few generations (assuming it's not lethal to the original carrier, in which case it would not even be present in one). As such, mutations in functional protein coding genes are not a major driving force of phenotypic change across generations. This is why the fruit fly makes a good model for human genetics--the superfluous regions of the genes (that, say, encode for parts of proteins where the amino acid sequence is largely inconsequential) have diverged quite a bit, but the important parts have stayed the same over the hundreds of millions of years since the last common ancestor between the fruit fly and the human. They have retained this "homology" because any changes in those regions was very strongly selected against.

::So what is the major cause of morphological change? Among closely related species (and, yes, for the purpose of this explanation humans are '''very''' closely related to mice), the major genetic differences underlying morphological variation are not in the protein-coding regions of the genes themselves, but in the promoter (regulatory) regions of these genes. Mutating an essential component gene that is essential to normal embryonic development is going to result in a dead embryo--not a reproductively viable organism. However, subtly adjusting the "on/off" switch of such a gene, and tweaking its expression pattern (which cells express a given gene), will both allow the organism to grow to reproductive viability, and produce a morphological change. If individuals with this new morphological change are able reproduce more efficiently than individuals without it, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations.

::As for how new genetic information is added (by which, I assume, you mean the emergence of new protein-coding genes), we return to the hustle and bustle of the chromosomes. Gene duplication events are very common. When an organism only has one or two (depending on the nature of the gene and the mutation) copies of an important gene to play with, significant changes will be very strongly selected against. When a gene is randomly duplicated, the organism now has a spare copy--and may accrue mutations in one of the copies of that gene without seriously impacting its reproductive potential. As mutations accumulate in the copy of the gene that is now freed from negative selective pressure, it will most likely just wind up as a useless (junk) sequence in the genomic junkyard (there are thousands of such non-functional duplicate-gene remnants in the human genome). If, however, as its sequence diverges from that of its "functional" copy, its mechanical function (or expression pattern, or both) changes in such a way that it provides a survival benefit to the organism carrying it, individuals carrying the divergent copy (now a new gene in its own right) will be selected for in subsequent generations and progressively more beneficial allelic variations of the new gene will be selected for.

::Similarly, when a large segment of a chromosome is duplicated, every new duplicate gene contained in that segment is entered into the "new gene lottery", for a chance to become new (repurposed) genetic information. This too is a fairly common occurrence, especially when there is a lot of selective pressure for novel adaptation.

::Evolution has been a '''long''' road. It's taken 4 billion years for gene duplication, sequence divergence, random catastrophes, population events, and the cut-throat race for reproductive viability to lead to life as we know it today.

::::[[Hardy Weinberg equilibrium]] is a model for what the genes of a living thing would be if they did not evolve. In this model, forces that change genetic frequency, such as mutations, genetic recombination, and so on, would have no effect. This concretely means that if a population has Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, and if, say, fifty percent of the individuals having one allele (alleles are versions of a gene) and fifty percent has another, then over, say, a thousand generations, fifty percent would still have one allele and fifty percent the other.

::::Experiments testing whether this equilibrium exists have been conducted for decades, and the result is that the frequency of alleles in a population change from generation to generation, and they change tremendously over large spans of time because mutations, genetic recombination, genetic drift, and other factors all make tiny changes in genes in individuals.

::::That withstanding, when individuals in a species pass their genes from generation to generation, it's easily to fathom that tiny observeable changes in alleles mean observeable changes in species over massive spans of time. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:15, 9 February 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If genetic mutations were beneficial even 1% of the time, we would see people developing new abilities and new body parts all the time. Instead, we only see people with serious birth defects and disabilities due to genetic mutation. Mutations are entropy affecting the ordered system of DNA, and only intelligent intervention could have brought that order about in the first place. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:49, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution. Nobody who properly understands how evolution works would teach it as such; there would be no purpose in doing so other than to deliberately prevent the students from understanding the intricacies of the evolutionary process. Natural selection '''is''' the major driving force of evolution, but it not the same thing as evolution. No competent teacher would present them as the same thing. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
This is an example of evolutionists "moving the goalposts," so to speak. Natural selection was considered an adequate explanation for evolution until ID pointed out the flaws of that theory. Instead of humbly accepting that their theory is flawed, however, evolutionists merely claim that their theory never said such a thing, and give a new contrived guess at what evolution is. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:52, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::If you piece apart the chemical pathways, it is a given that losing a small part of that pathway will render it useless. However, incomplete parts of that pathway can serve different purposes inside the body, meaning that they still have a reason to be selected for.

::This argument is not unlike the flagellum argument, with the mousetrap analogy; a mousetrap will not work if it's missing a part. However, you can use the pieces of a mousetrap for other purposes than catching mice. Furthermore, a few of flagellum's parts serve other purposes in the body.

::The argument that a chemical pathway's complexity makes it impossible to produce by evolution relies on the assumption that every part of a chemical pathway is entirely useless unless every part is present. However, the body does not exist in a vacuum and countless import chemicals in the body serve multiple purposes. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:26, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Who cares? The potential existence of a designer doesn't have anything to do with the potential existence of evolution. The evolutionary mechanisms in question tend to rely on numbers, on the probability that a mutation will happen here, that random mating will pair this chromosome with that, that genetic drift will change one allele percentage to another. If these numbers are driven by an almighty force, it doesn't change the mechanisms themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this question is thus irrelevant to the debate. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:38, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::"Who did it produce with?" - Your question presupposes that there had to be two distinct sexes. My following point will be an educated guess. It may not be right, but it's just an example of how the different sexes could have occured.
:::::If you take a look at flowers, you'll find that each flower has both male and female reproductive organs. This is pretty much universal over all plant species. Animals on the other hand, tend to have distinct males and females (at least, most vertebrates). This would imply that the separate reproductive organs were present before plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor. The common ancestor would likely have both pairs of organs, as plants do today. Plants, perhaps, never lost this trait. However, at some point after the divergance, animals became distinctly male and female (again, at least in vertebrates).
:::::As you know, organisms need energy, and the more body parts and organs you have, the more energy you require. Could it be that in animals, organisms in a species started to become specialised for which organs they used? In half of a population, the female rep. organs were slightly reduced, and vice versa. This would mean that the organisms required less energy. They would all still have both pairs of organs, but one would be reduced. Soon, two sexes would form, as one type of sexual organ would have been reduced/lost in each group.
:::::Again, this is not fact, merely my suggestion. Add to it if you wish, or point out how this would be wrong/unlikely. Hope this helps.
:::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-03-27T14:49:11Z

OllieB: /* What a creationist would reply */

.In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

The 15 Questions for evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] and there are 15 links on that page for those interested in further study.

Creation Ministries International has issued three response web pages to evolutionists concerning their replies to the 15 questions which can be found at these web locations:

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1–3]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-2 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15].

In addition, Creation Ministries International is in the midst of releasing a series of educational videos designed to rebut evolutionist responses to the 15 questions for evolutionists:

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=f4hTmRKz8rc 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- General objections]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=IizKNWUrMwU 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 1]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=e7CXwh46dX0 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 2]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=q1fxW1eTjZc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 3]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=WK9t8pmVKdc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 4]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=FvSH3wbAiRE 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 5]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=OVm8lSFjaa8 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 6]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=sxoa-L7KFGM 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 7]

Fan responses to evolutionist objections:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c Reddit atheist challenge - 15 questions evolutionists hate: Live dialogue]

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Agreed, the origin of life is a biochemical question--not really an evolutionary biology one. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:36, 21 January 2012 (EST)

::::That said, most of modern biology consists of biochemical questions, including the major mechanisms underlying evolution, so the question on the origin of life is not an inappropriate one here. To answer it, I must first address an idea that I've heard quoted by creationists addressing this question in the links provided by User:Conservative. That is the common misconception that the current scientific consensus suggests that life started as self-replicating polypeptides. In light of evidence uncovered in the past couple decades, this hypothesis is now considered highly unlikely; the process that would become "life" was likely already started before the "primordial amino acid soup" came into play. Self-replicating polydeoxyribonucleotides (DNA strands), are also considered an unlikely because of the chemical characteristics of DNA. Self-replicating strands of RNA, on the other hand, can be randomly generated in a laboratory using common, non-biological, reagents. This is a far-cry from the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment (their experimental conditions turned out to be a wildly incorrect reproduction of the early Earth), that found organic molecules in a solution zapped with electricity. Besides, complex organic molecules seem to form spontaneously (albeit in trace amounts) wherever the right elemental ingredients are present; that's the age-old rule of organic chemistry, if a side reaction '''can''' happen, it '''will''' happen to some degree.

::::Life is chemistry, very complex chemistry, but it is still chemistry. The components of a cell consist of biomolecules behaving in a chemical way (drugs are designed to take advantage of this fact). Barring any philosophical discussion on the meaning of life (for the last time, '''the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42'''), the purpose of a cell (or a complex organism consisting of a vast network of cells) is to reproduce. Self-reproduction is one of the defining traits of life. Ribonucleotides (present in trace amounts wherever the ingredients are found) will spontaneously form 5' to 3' polymers in a warm, reducing, aqueous environment; such as that found around the edges of a hot-spring (assuming a low oxygen atmosphere, which is unanimously suggested for the early Earth by geological data), or even an oceanic thermal vent. That one or more of these oligomers would have the enzymatic capacity to self-replicate is extremely plausible. When considering the scale (an entire planet), it becomes probable.

::::How these self-reproducing RNA strands started conspiring with amino acids, became compartmentalized in phospholipids, and then started using a DNA template, is still largely unknown. It is thought that these changes occurred in the order I just mentioned because that is the most chemically plausible order of events; although a plausible scenario is still very far from an established theory. As more evidence becomes available, as more experiments are done, and as geology reveals more information about the chemistry of the early Earth, it is likely that the scientific community will arrive at more of a consensus regarding the origin of life. Obviously, nobody was there to witness the origin of life and, unless the NSF allocates grant money towards a 1981 DeLorean, a conjectural consensus (that is well-supported by all the evidence) will be the closest that science can come to providing an answer to this question. This does not mean that scientists "don't know"; in the absence of first-hand observation,an inference from evidence is the closest that the scientific process can come to explaining anything.

::::There is evidence that much of the Old Testament (after Genesis) is a historically accurate, if poetically embellished (as all histories were at the time), account of bronze-age Jewish history. Archaeological evidence supports this and so science supports this. However, it is a non sequitur to conclude that because ''some'' Old Testament stories are grounded in historical fact that ''all'' Old Testament stories are literally true--even St. Paul admits that this is a matter of faith (and open to interpretation), not evidence. To draw an analogy, Livy, a Roman historian, wrote a lengthy account of the history of the Roman people. Much of this account is very historically accurate and is supported as such by archaeological evidence. However, it is very clearly illogical to conclude that because Livy's historical narrative is largely true, his references to the Roman gods playing a hand in these events must be true as well. Similarly science, which by definition can ''only'' rely on empirical evidence, must search outside of scripture for evidence regarding the origin of life and draw conclusions based on evidence alone. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 03:24, 25 January 2012 (EST)

::::: Very well argued. Can you provide a link to something showing that RNA can be randomly generated in a lab? It'd be interesting to read. Thanks :) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:18, 9 March 2012 (EST)

:::::::[http://www.horizonpress.com/cimb/v/v2/v2n102.pdf Happily]! --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:42, 9 March 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The only experiments done to test these ASSUMPTIONS were fatally flawed by bad data about the so-called "ancient Earth." Not even evolutionists take them seriously now. If this were true, new species should be rising from the ocean every day, but we see none. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:39, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::TonyPark is right again! There is no such thing as the "DNA code" (at least Dan Brown hasn't published it yet). A cell is a biochemical system, similar to how a car is a mechanical system. Actually, if examined closely, most biochemical systems are remarkably mechanical in function. The set of biomolecular actions in any cell, while they may seem quite complex, are actually quite predictable once they are well understood. This is one of the driving principles in modern cell biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, pharmacology, medicine (notably oncology), bioinformatics, and every other field (there are hundreds) that deals with functional genomics, proteomics, or metabolism.

::Genes are referred to as "information", even studied as information (bioinformatics), because that is a convenient way to model and discuss a very complex system. The article on [[genes]] here at Conservapedia is actually pretty well written (when I have time, I do want to tweak a couple minor points in that article, but that is something I will discuss on that article's talk page), I would encourage anybody reading this argument to read that article first if they are unfamiliar with the terms I am going to use.

::In the context of this question (and the "answers" posted by CMI), "DNA code" is a very arbitrarily defined term. The trouble is that the interactions between DNA and the biomolecular mediators of cellular homeostasis (the processes that maintain the tightly controlled cellular microenvironment) are quite complex. It is a gross oversimplification (in fact, it is incorrect) to say that DNA ''only'' functions as a "template" to be transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein. It is true that a similar-sounding term, "genetic code", refers to triplets of bases (codons) encoding for particular amino acids in a protein product. However, there is a lot more that goes into regulating cell processes than blind protein production. Gene expression is a very tightly regulated process ensuring that only the right cells express the right genes at the right time (for a good example of when this goes wrong, see [[cancer]]). This regulation is highly mechanical. To avoid launching into a lengthy discussion of gene regulatory mechanisms, I will leave the point at that.

::Accordingly, I will give the authors of this question the benefit of the doubt and interpret "DNA code" to mean the sum of homeostatic regulation via direct and indirect biomolecular interactions with DNA. On the whole, this question is so broad in scope that it ''is'' impossible to properly answer without several thousand pages of text. To illustrate this point, I have a five volume reference book on my bookshelf that summarizes most of the human biomolecular signalling pathways that were known when it was published (2006); in total, the book is 5300 pages long. Given the pace with which biomedical scientists are unraveling the human interactome, a 2011 edition would need to be '''at least''' twice as long (and require a giant team of very masochistic editors). The simple fact here is that '''every''' chemical process within the cell can (and does) elicit some downstream effect on gene regulation. Therefore, one cannot even ''functionally'' explain the "DNA code" without also explaining every last scrap of chemistry that goes on in a cell. Similarly, thoroughly explaining its origin would require tracing the phylogeny of several hundred thousand individual processes.

::While creationists may rejoice at the "impossibility" of this question, science is not at all clueless about the evolutionary origin of many of the more central parts in this system. Quite the contrary actually. For instance, the evolutionary origin of introns in eukaryotic genes from ancient self-splicing bacterial transposable elements (which seem to have been retroviral in origin) is practically an air-tight case. The highly conserved sequence homology among members of the most common families of transcription factors (proteins that directly interact with DNA to regulate genes) also strongly hints at the existence of a common root at the base of each family "tree". An even better example is the remarkably high level of homology between the transcriptional machinery in all extant lineages of life. Similarly, there is the striking homology in translational machinery. In fact, sequencing of ribosomal RNAs (which are under quite a bit of selective pressure to stay '''very''' static) is a very accurate way to estimate ancestral relationships--oh, and for most clades examined, the "newfangled" rRNA data suggests ancestral relationships that are very similar to (and in plants and animals, often identical to) those suggested by older techniques based on phenotype. All the examples that I just gave are evidence of the common descent of the gene regulatory / expression machinery. Clearly, without going back to the origin of life itself (which is an impossibility), explaining the evolutionary origin of the obscure <s>creationist invention</s> concept that is the "DNA code" is fundamentally impossible. However, just because scientists can not precisely trace every last bit of cellular machinery all the way back to the origin of life (which is the rather disingenuous implication of this question), does not mean that that the scientific community is at a loss for evidence from which to make logical inferences about its approximate naturalistic origin.

::Like question number 1, question 2 ignores the fundamental principles of the scientific process; conclusions and hypotheses regarding an un-observable process must strictly rely on logical consideration of the available evidence. The sound practice of science (which, I might add, is meticulously ingrained in any scientist-in-training and '''very''' strictly enforced by peer review) requires that evidence is objectively interpreted as only speaking for itself, independent of presupposition or ideological dogma. Science is not about searching for evidence in support of a particular hypothesis; in fact, it is about seeking evidence which contradicts the working hypothesis, so that the working hypothesis may be further refined. It is for this simple reason that "creation science", by relying on the '''presupposition''' of divine creation, is not science. A scientific theory, such as evolution or relativity is not a presupposition (as will be claimed in a couple later questions), rather it is a logical paradigm that is compatible with the hypotheses suggested by the available evidence. Scientific theories are, by definition, fluid logical paradigms; when the evidence suggests a paradoxical conclusion, the theory (not the conclusion) is adjusted to accommodate the new finding. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:41, 25 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The existence of the four genetic bases, AGTC, and the fact that they fit together like puzzle pieces with the correct counterpart molecule, is evidence for intelligent design. If DNA were truly random, we would see adenine binding with guanine, thiamine and cytosine in roughly equal numbers, but instead there is a non-random pattern that indicates an intelligent creator. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:43, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:18, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yet another very well-worded answer. Mr. Park, you are a tough act to follow!

::Seriously, what is the deal with the creationist obsession with mutating genes? Seriously, the idea that changing the genes is a major driving force of evolution pre-dates the understanding of how genes work. There are plenty of other ('''much''' more common and interesting) ways to generate phenotypic variation within a population. In the past three decades, advances in population genetics, combined with a veritable revolution in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology, have demonstrated that. In other words, referencing the breakthroughs that have resulted from the new-found understanding of the molecular mechanisms of evolution, '''"This ain't your daddy's Darwin!"'''

::But first, because the question insists, I will address the boring stuff.

::Genes duplicate, entire sections of chromosomes, and sometimes even whole chromosomes, or sets of chromosomes, can be duplicated or even fused. Sometimes, just a portion of a gene is duplicated, or maybe even swapped with a part from a different gene. On a smaller scale, errors in DNA replication, among other factors, can cause single base pairs in DNA to be changed (this is called a "single nucleotide polymorphism" or a SNP--pronounced "Snip"), deleted, or inserted. Sometimes, it's a transposable element (chunks of DNA that like to move around in the genome--a lot) that inserts in the middle of an exon. Or maybe even an endogenous retrovirus that's still intact enough to move around finding itself in between two enhancer elements for an essential gene. Chromosomes are not static structures either. High school biology was only partially right when they taught you that recombination occurs between homologous chromosomes during meiosis; as it turns out, non-homologous chromosomes trade parts too sometimes (quite often, actually, on an evolutionary time scale). In short, on the scale of hundreds of millions of years, the genome has more in common with Mardis Gras in New Orleans than it does with a leather-bound book.

::On the genomic level, when and where mutations occur is largely random. The vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever on phenotype. However, when a mutation does affect phenotype, whether or not it survives to be present in future populations is not random. Any genomic change that increases an organism's ability to reproduce efficiently, will gradually become increasingly prevalent in subsequent generations because the more-efficiently reproducing individuals generate more offspring. Alternatively, if a variation impairs the ability of an individual to reproduce efficiently, then that variation will become less prevalent in subsequent generations because the individuals carrying it will produce proportionately fewer offspring. This seemingly obvious observation '''is''' natural selection. To say that a trait is "selected against" simply means that it has a deleterious effect on the relative reproductive potential of the individuals carrying it.

::Random mutations generate novel allelic variations within a population, and the sieve of reproduction keeps the randomly-occurring harmful variations from being present in future populations while at the same time amplifying the number of individuals carrying favorable variations. The net result of this process is anything but random.

::That said, ecosystems change, natural disasters happen, geological events happen, new organisms colonize an ecosystem and disrupt the food chain. An allele that was beneficial in one generation, may be quite deleterious four generations later. But, when that happens, selective pressure shifts and individuals carrying the now-harmful allele are out-reproduced by individuals who are better adapted to the new conditions--thus the allelic composition of the population shifts again. Repeating a similar cycle over hundreds of generations will result in a population that is, by and large, phenotypically different (sometimes quite dramatically) from the original population. Repeat the cycle over tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of generations, and add in a whole host of other possible random events that favor or cause a redistribution of allele frequencies over the generations, and the end population will have changed drastically from the original population.

::Now for the fun stuff. The regions of important genes that encode for important proteins are under quite a bit of selective pressure to change as little as possible over the generations; a random mutation in one those regions would be so harmful to the reproductive ability of the individuals carrying it that it is not likely to persist in a population for more than a few generations (assuming it's not lethal to the original carrier, in which case it would not even be present in one). As such, mutations in functional protein coding genes are not a major driving force of phenotypic change across generations. This is why the fruit fly makes a good model for human genetics--the superfluous regions of the genes (that, say, encode for parts of proteins where the amino acid sequence is largely inconsequential) have diverged quite a bit, but the important parts have stayed the same over the hundreds of millions of years since the last common ancestor between the fruit fly and the human. They have retained this "homology" because any changes in those regions was very strongly selected against.

::So what is the major cause of morphological change? Among closely related species (and, yes, for the purpose of this explanation humans are '''very''' closely related to mice), the major genetic differences underlying morphological variation are not in the protein-coding regions of the genes themselves, but in the promoter (regulatory) regions of these genes. Mutating an essential component gene that is essential to normal embryonic development is going to result in a dead embryo--not a reproductively viable organism. However, subtly adjusting the "on/off" switch of such a gene, and tweaking its expression pattern (which cells express a given gene), will both allow the organism to grow to reproductive viability, and produce a morphological change. If individuals with this new morphological change are able reproduce more efficiently than individuals without it, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations.

::As for how new genetic information is added (by which, I assume, you mean the emergence of new protein-coding genes), we return to the hustle and bustle of the chromosomes. Gene duplication events are very common. When an organism only has one or two (depending on the nature of the gene and the mutation) copies of an important gene to play with, significant changes will be very strongly selected against. When a gene is randomly duplicated, the organism now has a spare copy--and may accrue mutations in one of the copies of that gene without seriously impacting its reproductive potential. As mutations accumulate in the copy of the gene that is now freed from negative selective pressure, it will most likely just wind up as a useless (junk) sequence in the genomic junkyard (there are thousands of such non-functional duplicate-gene remnants in the human genome). If, however, as its sequence diverges from that of its "functional" copy, its mechanical function (or expression pattern, or both) changes in such a way that it provides a survival benefit to the organism carrying it, individuals carrying the divergent copy (now a new gene in its own right) will be selected for in subsequent generations and progressively more beneficial allelic variations of the new gene will be selected for.

::Similarly, when a large segment of a chromosome is duplicated, every new duplicate gene contained in that segment is entered into the "new gene lottery", for a chance to become new (repurposed) genetic information. This too is a fairly common occurrence, especially when there is a lot of selective pressure for novel adaptation.

::Evolution has been a '''long''' road. It's taken 4 billion years for gene duplication, sequence divergence, random catastrophes, population events, and the cut-throat race for reproductive viability to lead to life as we know it today.

::::[[Hardy Weinberg equilibrium]] is a model for what the genes of a living thing would be if they did not evolve. In this model, forces that change genetic frequency, such as mutations, genetic recombination, and so on, would have no effect. This concretely means that if a population has Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, and if, say, fifty percent of the individuals having one allele (alleles are versions of a gene) and fifty percent has another, then over, say, a thousand generations, fifty percent would still have one allele and fifty percent the other.

::::Experiments testing whether this equilibrium exists have been conducted for decades, and the result is that the frequency of alleles in a population change from generation to generation, and they change tremendously over large spans of time because mutations, genetic recombination, genetic drift, and other factors all make tiny changes in genes in individuals.

::::That withstanding, when individuals in a species pass their genes from generation to generation, it's easily to fathom that tiny observeable changes in alleles mean observeable changes in species over massive spans of time. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:15, 9 February 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If genetic mutations were beneficial even 1% of the time, we would see people developing new abilities and new body parts all the time. Instead, we only see people with serious birth defects and disabilities due to genetic mutation. Mutations are entropy affecting the ordered system of DNA, and only intelligent intervention could have brought that order about in the first place. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:49, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution. Nobody who properly understands how evolution works would teach it as such; there would be no purpose in doing so other than to deliberately prevent the students from understanding the intricacies of the evolutionary process. Natural selection '''is''' the major driving force of evolution, but it not the same thing as evolution. No competent teacher would present them as the same thing. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::If you piece apart the chemical pathways, it is a given that losing a small part of that pathway will render it useless. However, incomplete parts of that pathway can serve different purposes inside the body, meaning that they still have a reason to be selected for.

::This argument is not unlike the flagellum argument, with the mousetrap analogy; a mousetrap will not work if it's missing a part. However, you can use the pieces of a mousetrap for other purposes than catching mice. Furthermore, a few of flagellum's parts serve other purposes in the body.

::The argument that a chemical pathway's complexity makes it impossible to produce by evolution relies on the assumption that every part of a chemical pathway is entirely useless unless every part is present. However, the body does not exist in a vacuum and countless import chemicals in the body serve multiple purposes. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:26, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Who cares? The potential existence of a designer doesn't have anything to do with the potential existence of evolution. The evolutionary mechanisms in question tend to rely on numbers, on the probability that a mutation will happen here, that random mating will pair this chromosome with that, that genetic drift will change one allele percentage to another. If these numbers are driven by an almighty force, it doesn't change the mechanisms themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this question is thus irrelevant to the debate. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:38, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::"Who did it produce with?" - Your question presupposes that there had to be two distinct sexes. My following point will be an educated guess. It may not be right, but it's just an example of how the different sexes could have occured.
:::::If you take a look at flowers, you'll find that each flower has both male and female reproductive organs. This is pretty much universal over all plant species. Animals on the other hand, tend to have distinct males and females (at least, most vertebrates). This would imply that the separate reproductive organs were present before plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor. The common ancestor would likely have both pairs of organs, as plants do today. Plants, perhaps, never lost this trait. However, at some point after the divergance, animals became distinctly male and female (again, at least in vertebrates).
:::::As you know, organisms need energy, and the more body parts and organs you have, the more energy you require. Could it be that in animals, organisms in a species started to become specialised for which organs they used? In half of a population, the female rep. organs were slightly reduced, and vice versa. This would mean that the organisms required less energy. They would all still have both pairs of organs, but one would be reduced. Soon, two sexes would form, as one type of sexual organ would have been reduced/lost in each group.
:::::Again, this is not fact, merely my suggestion. Add to it if you wish, or point out how this would be wrong/unlikely. Hope this helps.
:::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-03-27T14:43:45Z

OllieB: /* What a creationist would reply */

.In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

The 15 Questions for evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] and there are 15 links on that page for those interested in further study.

Creation Ministries International has issued three response web pages to evolutionists concerning their replies to the 15 questions which can be found at these web locations:

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1–3]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-2 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15].

In addition, Creation Ministries International is in the midst of releasing a series of educational videos designed to rebut evolutionist responses to the 15 questions for evolutionists:

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=f4hTmRKz8rc 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- General objections]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=IizKNWUrMwU 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 1]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=e7CXwh46dX0 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 2]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=q1fxW1eTjZc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 3]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=WK9t8pmVKdc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 4]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=FvSH3wbAiRE 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 5]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=OVm8lSFjaa8 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 6]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=sxoa-L7KFGM 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 7]

Fan responses to evolutionist objections:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c Reddit atheist challenge - 15 questions evolutionists hate: Live dialogue]

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Agreed, the origin of life is a biochemical question--not really an evolutionary biology one. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:36, 21 January 2012 (EST)

::::That said, most of modern biology consists of biochemical questions, including the major mechanisms underlying evolution, so the question on the origin of life is not an inappropriate one here. To answer it, I must first address an idea that I've heard quoted by creationists addressing this question in the links provided by User:Conservative. That is the common misconception that the current scientific consensus suggests that life started as self-replicating polypeptides. In light of evidence uncovered in the past couple decades, this hypothesis is now considered highly unlikely; the process that would become "life" was likely already started before the "primordial amino acid soup" came into play. Self-replicating polydeoxyribonucleotides (DNA strands), are also considered an unlikely because of the chemical characteristics of DNA. Self-replicating strands of RNA, on the other hand, can be randomly generated in a laboratory using common, non-biological, reagents. This is a far-cry from the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment (their experimental conditions turned out to be a wildly incorrect reproduction of the early Earth), that found organic molecules in a solution zapped with electricity. Besides, complex organic molecules seem to form spontaneously (albeit in trace amounts) wherever the right elemental ingredients are present; that's the age-old rule of organic chemistry, if a side reaction '''can''' happen, it '''will''' happen to some degree.

::::Life is chemistry, very complex chemistry, but it is still chemistry. The components of a cell consist of biomolecules behaving in a chemical way (drugs are designed to take advantage of this fact). Barring any philosophical discussion on the meaning of life (for the last time, '''the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42'''), the purpose of a cell (or a complex organism consisting of a vast network of cells) is to reproduce. Self-reproduction is one of the defining traits of life. Ribonucleotides (present in trace amounts wherever the ingredients are found) will spontaneously form 5' to 3' polymers in a warm, reducing, aqueous environment; such as that found around the edges of a hot-spring (assuming a low oxygen atmosphere, which is unanimously suggested for the early Earth by geological data), or even an oceanic thermal vent. That one or more of these oligomers would have the enzymatic capacity to self-replicate is extremely plausible. When considering the scale (an entire planet), it becomes probable.

::::How these self-reproducing RNA strands started conspiring with amino acids, became compartmentalized in phospholipids, and then started using a DNA template, is still largely unknown. It is thought that these changes occurred in the order I just mentioned because that is the most chemically plausible order of events; although a plausible scenario is still very far from an established theory. As more evidence becomes available, as more experiments are done, and as geology reveals more information about the chemistry of the early Earth, it is likely that the scientific community will arrive at more of a consensus regarding the origin of life. Obviously, nobody was there to witness the origin of life and, unless the NSF allocates grant money towards a 1981 DeLorean, a conjectural consensus (that is well-supported by all the evidence) will be the closest that science can come to providing an answer to this question. This does not mean that scientists "don't know"; in the absence of first-hand observation,an inference from evidence is the closest that the scientific process can come to explaining anything.

::::There is evidence that much of the Old Testament (after Genesis) is a historically accurate, if poetically embellished (as all histories were at the time), account of bronze-age Jewish history. Archaeological evidence supports this and so science supports this. However, it is a non sequitur to conclude that because ''some'' Old Testament stories are grounded in historical fact that ''all'' Old Testament stories are literally true--even St. Paul admits that this is a matter of faith (and open to interpretation), not evidence. To draw an analogy, Livy, a Roman historian, wrote a lengthy account of the history of the Roman people. Much of this account is very historically accurate and is supported as such by archaeological evidence. However, it is very clearly illogical to conclude that because Livy's historical narrative is largely true, his references to the Roman gods playing a hand in these events must be true as well. Similarly science, which by definition can ''only'' rely on empirical evidence, must search outside of scripture for evidence regarding the origin of life and draw conclusions based on evidence alone. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 03:24, 25 January 2012 (EST)

::::: Very well argued. Can you provide a link to something showing that RNA can be randomly generated in a lab? It'd be interesting to read. Thanks :) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:18, 9 March 2012 (EST)

:::::::[http://www.horizonpress.com/cimb/v/v2/v2n102.pdf Happily]! --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:42, 9 March 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The only experiments done to test these ASSUMPTIONS were fatally flawed by bad data about the so-called "ancient Earth." Not even evolutionists take them seriously now. If this were true, new species should be rising from the ocean every day, but we see none. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:39, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::TonyPark is right again! There is no such thing as the "DNA code" (at least Dan Brown hasn't published it yet). A cell is a biochemical system, similar to how a car is a mechanical system. Actually, if examined closely, most biochemical systems are remarkably mechanical in function. The set of biomolecular actions in any cell, while they may seem quite complex, are actually quite predictable once they are well understood. This is one of the driving principles in modern cell biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, pharmacology, medicine (notably oncology), bioinformatics, and every other field (there are hundreds) that deals with functional genomics, proteomics, or metabolism.

::Genes are referred to as "information", even studied as information (bioinformatics), because that is a convenient way to model and discuss a very complex system. The article on [[genes]] here at Conservapedia is actually pretty well written (when I have time, I do want to tweak a couple minor points in that article, but that is something I will discuss on that article's talk page), I would encourage anybody reading this argument to read that article first if they are unfamiliar with the terms I am going to use.

::In the context of this question (and the "answers" posted by CMI), "DNA code" is a very arbitrarily defined term. The trouble is that the interactions between DNA and the biomolecular mediators of cellular homeostasis (the processes that maintain the tightly controlled cellular microenvironment) are quite complex. It is a gross oversimplification (in fact, it is incorrect) to say that DNA ''only'' functions as a "template" to be transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein. It is true that a similar-sounding term, "genetic code", refers to triplets of bases (codons) encoding for particular amino acids in a protein product. However, there is a lot more that goes into regulating cell processes than blind protein production. Gene expression is a very tightly regulated process ensuring that only the right cells express the right genes at the right time (for a good example of when this goes wrong, see [[cancer]]). This regulation is highly mechanical. To avoid launching into a lengthy discussion of gene regulatory mechanisms, I will leave the point at that.

::Accordingly, I will give the authors of this question the benefit of the doubt and interpret "DNA code" to mean the sum of homeostatic regulation via direct and indirect biomolecular interactions with DNA. On the whole, this question is so broad in scope that it ''is'' impossible to properly answer without several thousand pages of text. To illustrate this point, I have a five volume reference book on my bookshelf that summarizes most of the human biomolecular signalling pathways that were known when it was published (2006); in total, the book is 5300 pages long. Given the pace with which biomedical scientists are unraveling the human interactome, a 2011 edition would need to be '''at least''' twice as long (and require a giant team of very masochistic editors). The simple fact here is that '''every''' chemical process within the cell can (and does) elicit some downstream effect on gene regulation. Therefore, one cannot even ''functionally'' explain the "DNA code" without also explaining every last scrap of chemistry that goes on in a cell. Similarly, thoroughly explaining its origin would require tracing the phylogeny of several hundred thousand individual processes.

::While creationists may rejoice at the "impossibility" of this question, science is not at all clueless about the evolutionary origin of many of the more central parts in this system. Quite the contrary actually. For instance, the evolutionary origin of introns in eukaryotic genes from ancient self-splicing bacterial transposable elements (which seem to have been retroviral in origin) is practically an air-tight case. The highly conserved sequence homology among members of the most common families of transcription factors (proteins that directly interact with DNA to regulate genes) also strongly hints at the existence of a common root at the base of each family "tree". An even better example is the remarkably high level of homology between the transcriptional machinery in all extant lineages of life. Similarly, there is the striking homology in translational machinery. In fact, sequencing of ribosomal RNAs (which are under quite a bit of selective pressure to stay '''very''' static) is a very accurate way to estimate ancestral relationships--oh, and for most clades examined, the "newfangled" rRNA data suggests ancestral relationships that are very similar to (and in plants and animals, often identical to) those suggested by older techniques based on phenotype. All the examples that I just gave are evidence of the common descent of the gene regulatory / expression machinery. Clearly, without going back to the origin of life itself (which is an impossibility), explaining the evolutionary origin of the obscure <s>creationist invention</s> concept that is the "DNA code" is fundamentally impossible. However, just because scientists can not precisely trace every last bit of cellular machinery all the way back to the origin of life (which is the rather disingenuous implication of this question), does not mean that that the scientific community is at a loss for evidence from which to make logical inferences about its approximate naturalistic origin.

::Like question number 1, question 2 ignores the fundamental principles of the scientific process; conclusions and hypotheses regarding an un-observable process must strictly rely on logical consideration of the available evidence. The sound practice of science (which, I might add, is meticulously ingrained in any scientist-in-training and '''very''' strictly enforced by peer review) requires that evidence is objectively interpreted as only speaking for itself, independent of presupposition or ideological dogma. Science is not about searching for evidence in support of a particular hypothesis; in fact, it is about seeking evidence which contradicts the working hypothesis, so that the working hypothesis may be further refined. It is for this simple reason that "creation science", by relying on the '''presupposition''' of divine creation, is not science. A scientific theory, such as evolution or relativity is not a presupposition (as will be claimed in a couple later questions), rather it is a logical paradigm that is compatible with the hypotheses suggested by the available evidence. Scientific theories are, by definition, fluid logical paradigms; when the evidence suggests a paradoxical conclusion, the theory (not the conclusion) is adjusted to accommodate the new finding. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:41, 25 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The existence of the four genetic bases, AGTC, and the fact that they fit together like puzzle pieces with the correct counterpart molecule, is evidence for intelligent design. If DNA were truly random, we would see adenine binding with guanine, thiamine and cytosine in roughly equal numbers, but instead there is a non-random pattern that indicates an intelligent creator. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:43, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:18, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yet another very well-worded answer. Mr. Park, you are a tough act to follow!

::Seriously, what is the deal with the creationist obsession with mutating genes? Seriously, the idea that changing the genes is a major driving force of evolution pre-dates the understanding of how genes work. There are plenty of other ('''much''' more common and interesting) ways to generate phenotypic variation within a population. In the past three decades, advances in population genetics, combined with a veritable revolution in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology, have demonstrated that. In other words, referencing the breakthroughs that have resulted from the new-found understanding of the molecular mechanisms of evolution, '''"This ain't your daddy's Darwin!"'''

::But first, because the question insists, I will address the boring stuff.

::Genes duplicate, entire sections of chromosomes, and sometimes even whole chromosomes, or sets of chromosomes, can be duplicated or even fused. Sometimes, just a portion of a gene is duplicated, or maybe even swapped with a part from a different gene. On a smaller scale, errors in DNA replication, among other factors, can cause single base pairs in DNA to be changed (this is called a "single nucleotide polymorphism" or a SNP--pronounced "Snip"), deleted, or inserted. Sometimes, it's a transposable element (chunks of DNA that like to move around in the genome--a lot) that inserts in the middle of an exon. Or maybe even an endogenous retrovirus that's still intact enough to move around finding itself in between two enhancer elements for an essential gene. Chromosomes are not static structures either. High school biology was only partially right when they taught you that recombination occurs between homologous chromosomes during meiosis; as it turns out, non-homologous chromosomes trade parts too sometimes (quite often, actually, on an evolutionary time scale). In short, on the scale of hundreds of millions of years, the genome has more in common with Mardis Gras in New Orleans than it does with a leather-bound book.

::On the genomic level, when and where mutations occur is largely random. The vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever on phenotype. However, when a mutation does affect phenotype, whether or not it survives to be present in future populations is not random. Any genomic change that increases an organism's ability to reproduce efficiently, will gradually become increasingly prevalent in subsequent generations because the more-efficiently reproducing individuals generate more offspring. Alternatively, if a variation impairs the ability of an individual to reproduce efficiently, then that variation will become less prevalent in subsequent generations because the individuals carrying it will produce proportionately fewer offspring. This seemingly obvious observation '''is''' natural selection. To say that a trait is "selected against" simply means that it has a deleterious effect on the relative reproductive potential of the individuals carrying it.

::Random mutations generate novel allelic variations within a population, and the sieve of reproduction keeps the randomly-occurring harmful variations from being present in future populations while at the same time amplifying the number of individuals carrying favorable variations. The net result of this process is anything but random.

::That said, ecosystems change, natural disasters happen, geological events happen, new organisms colonize an ecosystem and disrupt the food chain. An allele that was beneficial in one generation, may be quite deleterious four generations later. But, when that happens, selective pressure shifts and individuals carrying the now-harmful allele are out-reproduced by individuals who are better adapted to the new conditions--thus the allelic composition of the population shifts again. Repeating a similar cycle over hundreds of generations will result in a population that is, by and large, phenotypically different (sometimes quite dramatically) from the original population. Repeat the cycle over tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of generations, and add in a whole host of other possible random events that favor or cause a redistribution of allele frequencies over the generations, and the end population will have changed drastically from the original population.

::Now for the fun stuff. The regions of important genes that encode for important proteins are under quite a bit of selective pressure to change as little as possible over the generations; a random mutation in one those regions would be so harmful to the reproductive ability of the individuals carrying it that it is not likely to persist in a population for more than a few generations (assuming it's not lethal to the original carrier, in which case it would not even be present in one). As such, mutations in functional protein coding genes are not a major driving force of phenotypic change across generations. This is why the fruit fly makes a good model for human genetics--the superfluous regions of the genes (that, say, encode for parts of proteins where the amino acid sequence is largely inconsequential) have diverged quite a bit, but the important parts have stayed the same over the hundreds of millions of years since the last common ancestor between the fruit fly and the human. They have retained this "homology" because any changes in those regions was very strongly selected against.

::So what is the major cause of morphological change? Among closely related species (and, yes, for the purpose of this explanation humans are '''very''' closely related to mice), the major genetic differences underlying morphological variation are not in the protein-coding regions of the genes themselves, but in the promoter (regulatory) regions of these genes. Mutating an essential component gene that is essential to normal embryonic development is going to result in a dead embryo--not a reproductively viable organism. However, subtly adjusting the "on/off" switch of such a gene, and tweaking its expression pattern (which cells express a given gene), will both allow the organism to grow to reproductive viability, and produce a morphological change. If individuals with this new morphological change are able reproduce more efficiently than individuals without it, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations.

::As for how new genetic information is added (by which, I assume, you mean the emergence of new protein-coding genes), we return to the hustle and bustle of the chromosomes. Gene duplication events are very common. When an organism only has one or two (depending on the nature of the gene and the mutation) copies of an important gene to play with, significant changes will be very strongly selected against. When a gene is randomly duplicated, the organism now has a spare copy--and may accrue mutations in one of the copies of that gene without seriously impacting its reproductive potential. As mutations accumulate in the copy of the gene that is now freed from negative selective pressure, it will most likely just wind up as a useless (junk) sequence in the genomic junkyard (there are thousands of such non-functional duplicate-gene remnants in the human genome). If, however, as its sequence diverges from that of its "functional" copy, its mechanical function (or expression pattern, or both) changes in such a way that it provides a survival benefit to the organism carrying it, individuals carrying the divergent copy (now a new gene in its own right) will be selected for in subsequent generations and progressively more beneficial allelic variations of the new gene will be selected for.

::Similarly, when a large segment of a chromosome is duplicated, every new duplicate gene contained in that segment is entered into the "new gene lottery", for a chance to become new (repurposed) genetic information. This too is a fairly common occurrence, especially when there is a lot of selective pressure for novel adaptation.

::Evolution has been a '''long''' road. It's taken 4 billion years for gene duplication, sequence divergence, random catastrophes, population events, and the cut-throat race for reproductive viability to lead to life as we know it today.

::::[[Hardy Weinberg equilibrium]] is a model for what the genes of a living thing would be if they did not evolve. In this model, forces that change genetic frequency, such as mutations, genetic recombination, and so on, would have no effect. This concretely means that if a population has Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, and if, say, fifty percent of the individuals having one allele (alleles are versions of a gene) and fifty percent has another, then over, say, a thousand generations, fifty percent would still have one allele and fifty percent the other.

::::Experiments testing whether this equilibrium exists have been conducted for decades, and the result is that the frequency of alleles in a population change from generation to generation, and they change tremendously over large spans of time because mutations, genetic recombination, genetic drift, and other factors all make tiny changes in genes in individuals.

::::That withstanding, when individuals in a species pass their genes from generation to generation, it's easily to fathom that tiny observeable changes in alleles mean observeable changes in species over massive spans of time. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:15, 9 February 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution. Nobody who properly understands how evolution works would teach it as such; there would be no purpose in doing so other than to deliberately prevent the students from understanding the intricacies of the evolutionary process. Natural selection '''is''' the major driving force of evolution, but it not the same thing as evolution. No competent teacher would present them as the same thing. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::If you piece apart the chemical pathways, it is a given that losing a small part of that pathway will render it useless. However, incomplete parts of that pathway can serve different purposes inside the body, meaning that they still have a reason to be selected for.

::This argument is not unlike the flagellum argument, with the mousetrap analogy; a mousetrap will not work if it's missing a part. However, you can use the pieces of a mousetrap for other purposes than catching mice. Furthermore, a few of flagellum's parts serve other purposes in the body.

::The argument that a chemical pathway's complexity makes it impossible to produce by evolution relies on the assumption that every part of a chemical pathway is entirely useless unless every part is present. However, the body does not exist in a vacuum and countless import chemicals in the body serve multiple purposes. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:26, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Who cares? The potential existence of a designer doesn't have anything to do with the potential existence of evolution. The evolutionary mechanisms in question tend to rely on numbers, on the probability that a mutation will happen here, that random mating will pair this chromosome with that, that genetic drift will change one allele percentage to another. If these numbers are driven by an almighty force, it doesn't change the mechanisms themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this question is thus irrelevant to the debate. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:38, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::"Who did it produce with?" - Your question presupposes that there had to be two distinct sexes. My following point will be an educated guess. It may not be right, but it's just an example of how the different sexes could have occured.
:::::If you take a look at flowers, you'll find that each flower has both male and female reproductive organs. This is pretty much universal over all plant species. Animals on the other hand, tend to have distinct males and females (at least, most vertebrates). This would imply that the separate reproductive organs were present before plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor. The common ancestor would likely have both pairs of organs, as plants do today. Plants, perhaps, never lost this trait. However, at some point after the divergance, animals became distinctly male and female (again, at least in vertebrates).
:::::As you know, organisms need energy, and the more body parts and organs you have, the more energy you require. Could it be that in animals, organisms in a species started to become specialised for which organs they used? In half of a population, the female rep. organs were slightly reduced, and vice versa. This would mean that the organisms required less energy. They would all still have both pairs of organs, but one would be reduced. Soon, two sexes would form, as one type of sexual organ would have been reduced/lost in each group.
:::::Again, this is not fact, merely my suggestion. Add to it if you wish, or point out how this would be wrong/unlikely. Hope this helps.
:::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-03-27T14:39:43Z

OllieB: /* What a creationist would reply */

.In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

The 15 Questions for evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] and there are 15 links on that page for those interested in further study.

Creation Ministries International has issued three response web pages to evolutionists concerning their replies to the 15 questions which can be found at these web locations:

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1–3]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-2 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15].

In addition, Creation Ministries International is in the midst of releasing a series of educational videos designed to rebut evolutionist responses to the 15 questions for evolutionists:

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=f4hTmRKz8rc 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- General objections]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=IizKNWUrMwU 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 1]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=e7CXwh46dX0 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 2]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=q1fxW1eTjZc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 3]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=WK9t8pmVKdc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 4]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=FvSH3wbAiRE 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 5]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=OVm8lSFjaa8 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 6]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=sxoa-L7KFGM 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 7]

Fan responses to evolutionist objections:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c Reddit atheist challenge - 15 questions evolutionists hate: Live dialogue]

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Agreed, the origin of life is a biochemical question--not really an evolutionary biology one. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:36, 21 January 2012 (EST)

::::That said, most of modern biology consists of biochemical questions, including the major mechanisms underlying evolution, so the question on the origin of life is not an inappropriate one here. To answer it, I must first address an idea that I've heard quoted by creationists addressing this question in the links provided by User:Conservative. That is the common misconception that the current scientific consensus suggests that life started as self-replicating polypeptides. In light of evidence uncovered in the past couple decades, this hypothesis is now considered highly unlikely; the process that would become "life" was likely already started before the "primordial amino acid soup" came into play. Self-replicating polydeoxyribonucleotides (DNA strands), are also considered an unlikely because of the chemical characteristics of DNA. Self-replicating strands of RNA, on the other hand, can be randomly generated in a laboratory using common, non-biological, reagents. This is a far-cry from the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment (their experimental conditions turned out to be a wildly incorrect reproduction of the early Earth), that found organic molecules in a solution zapped with electricity. Besides, complex organic molecules seem to form spontaneously (albeit in trace amounts) wherever the right elemental ingredients are present; that's the age-old rule of organic chemistry, if a side reaction '''can''' happen, it '''will''' happen to some degree.

::::Life is chemistry, very complex chemistry, but it is still chemistry. The components of a cell consist of biomolecules behaving in a chemical way (drugs are designed to take advantage of this fact). Barring any philosophical discussion on the meaning of life (for the last time, '''the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42'''), the purpose of a cell (or a complex organism consisting of a vast network of cells) is to reproduce. Self-reproduction is one of the defining traits of life. Ribonucleotides (present in trace amounts wherever the ingredients are found) will spontaneously form 5' to 3' polymers in a warm, reducing, aqueous environment; such as that found around the edges of a hot-spring (assuming a low oxygen atmosphere, which is unanimously suggested for the early Earth by geological data), or even an oceanic thermal vent. That one or more of these oligomers would have the enzymatic capacity to self-replicate is extremely plausible. When considering the scale (an entire planet), it becomes probable.

::::How these self-reproducing RNA strands started conspiring with amino acids, became compartmentalized in phospholipids, and then started using a DNA template, is still largely unknown. It is thought that these changes occurred in the order I just mentioned because that is the most chemically plausible order of events; although a plausible scenario is still very far from an established theory. As more evidence becomes available, as more experiments are done, and as geology reveals more information about the chemistry of the early Earth, it is likely that the scientific community will arrive at more of a consensus regarding the origin of life. Obviously, nobody was there to witness the origin of life and, unless the NSF allocates grant money towards a 1981 DeLorean, a conjectural consensus (that is well-supported by all the evidence) will be the closest that science can come to providing an answer to this question. This does not mean that scientists "don't know"; in the absence of first-hand observation,an inference from evidence is the closest that the scientific process can come to explaining anything.

::::There is evidence that much of the Old Testament (after Genesis) is a historically accurate, if poetically embellished (as all histories were at the time), account of bronze-age Jewish history. Archaeological evidence supports this and so science supports this. However, it is a non sequitur to conclude that because ''some'' Old Testament stories are grounded in historical fact that ''all'' Old Testament stories are literally true--even St. Paul admits that this is a matter of faith (and open to interpretation), not evidence. To draw an analogy, Livy, a Roman historian, wrote a lengthy account of the history of the Roman people. Much of this account is very historically accurate and is supported as such by archaeological evidence. However, it is very clearly illogical to conclude that because Livy's historical narrative is largely true, his references to the Roman gods playing a hand in these events must be true as well. Similarly science, which by definition can ''only'' rely on empirical evidence, must search outside of scripture for evidence regarding the origin of life and draw conclusions based on evidence alone. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 03:24, 25 January 2012 (EST)

::::: Very well argued. Can you provide a link to something showing that RNA can be randomly generated in a lab? It'd be interesting to read. Thanks :) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:18, 9 March 2012 (EST)

:::::::[http://www.horizonpress.com/cimb/v/v2/v2n102.pdf Happily]! --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:42, 9 March 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The only experiments done to test these ASSUMPTIONS were fatally flawed by bad data about the so-called "ancient Earth." Not even evolutionists take them seriously now. If this were true, new species should be rising from the ocean every day, but we see none. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:39, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::TonyPark is right again! There is no such thing as the "DNA code" (at least Dan Brown hasn't published it yet). A cell is a biochemical system, similar to how a car is a mechanical system. Actually, if examined closely, most biochemical systems are remarkably mechanical in function. The set of biomolecular actions in any cell, while they may seem quite complex, are actually quite predictable once they are well understood. This is one of the driving principles in modern cell biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, pharmacology, medicine (notably oncology), bioinformatics, and every other field (there are hundreds) that deals with functional genomics, proteomics, or metabolism.

::Genes are referred to as "information", even studied as information (bioinformatics), because that is a convenient way to model and discuss a very complex system. The article on [[genes]] here at Conservapedia is actually pretty well written (when I have time, I do want to tweak a couple minor points in that article, but that is something I will discuss on that article's talk page), I would encourage anybody reading this argument to read that article first if they are unfamiliar with the terms I am going to use.

::In the context of this question (and the "answers" posted by CMI), "DNA code" is a very arbitrarily defined term. The trouble is that the interactions between DNA and the biomolecular mediators of cellular homeostasis (the processes that maintain the tightly controlled cellular microenvironment) are quite complex. It is a gross oversimplification (in fact, it is incorrect) to say that DNA ''only'' functions as a "template" to be transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein. It is true that a similar-sounding term, "genetic code", refers to triplets of bases (codons) encoding for particular amino acids in a protein product. However, there is a lot more that goes into regulating cell processes than blind protein production. Gene expression is a very tightly regulated process ensuring that only the right cells express the right genes at the right time (for a good example of when this goes wrong, see [[cancer]]). This regulation is highly mechanical. To avoid launching into a lengthy discussion of gene regulatory mechanisms, I will leave the point at that.

::Accordingly, I will give the authors of this question the benefit of the doubt and interpret "DNA code" to mean the sum of homeostatic regulation via direct and indirect biomolecular interactions with DNA. On the whole, this question is so broad in scope that it ''is'' impossible to properly answer without several thousand pages of text. To illustrate this point, I have a five volume reference book on my bookshelf that summarizes most of the human biomolecular signalling pathways that were known when it was published (2006); in total, the book is 5300 pages long. Given the pace with which biomedical scientists are unraveling the human interactome, a 2011 edition would need to be '''at least''' twice as long (and require a giant team of very masochistic editors). The simple fact here is that '''every''' chemical process within the cell can (and does) elicit some downstream effect on gene regulation. Therefore, one cannot even ''functionally'' explain the "DNA code" without also explaining every last scrap of chemistry that goes on in a cell. Similarly, thoroughly explaining its origin would require tracing the phylogeny of several hundred thousand individual processes.

::While creationists may rejoice at the "impossibility" of this question, science is not at all clueless about the evolutionary origin of many of the more central parts in this system. Quite the contrary actually. For instance, the evolutionary origin of introns in eukaryotic genes from ancient self-splicing bacterial transposable elements (which seem to have been retroviral in origin) is practically an air-tight case. The highly conserved sequence homology among members of the most common families of transcription factors (proteins that directly interact with DNA to regulate genes) also strongly hints at the existence of a common root at the base of each family "tree". An even better example is the remarkably high level of homology between the transcriptional machinery in all extant lineages of life. Similarly, there is the striking homology in translational machinery. In fact, sequencing of ribosomal RNAs (which are under quite a bit of selective pressure to stay '''very''' static) is a very accurate way to estimate ancestral relationships--oh, and for most clades examined, the "newfangled" rRNA data suggests ancestral relationships that are very similar to (and in plants and animals, often identical to) those suggested by older techniques based on phenotype. All the examples that I just gave are evidence of the common descent of the gene regulatory / expression machinery. Clearly, without going back to the origin of life itself (which is an impossibility), explaining the evolutionary origin of the obscure <s>creationist invention</s> concept that is the "DNA code" is fundamentally impossible. However, just because scientists can not precisely trace every last bit of cellular machinery all the way back to the origin of life (which is the rather disingenuous implication of this question), does not mean that that the scientific community is at a loss for evidence from which to make logical inferences about its approximate naturalistic origin.

::Like question number 1, question 2 ignores the fundamental principles of the scientific process; conclusions and hypotheses regarding an un-observable process must strictly rely on logical consideration of the available evidence. The sound practice of science (which, I might add, is meticulously ingrained in any scientist-in-training and '''very''' strictly enforced by peer review) requires that evidence is objectively interpreted as only speaking for itself, independent of presupposition or ideological dogma. Science is not about searching for evidence in support of a particular hypothesis; in fact, it is about seeking evidence which contradicts the working hypothesis, so that the working hypothesis may be further refined. It is for this simple reason that "creation science", by relying on the '''presupposition''' of divine creation, is not science. A scientific theory, such as evolution or relativity is not a presupposition (as will be claimed in a couple later questions), rather it is a logical paradigm that is compatible with the hypotheses suggested by the available evidence. Scientific theories are, by definition, fluid logical paradigms; when the evidence suggests a paradoxical conclusion, the theory (not the conclusion) is adjusted to accommodate the new finding. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:41, 25 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:18, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yet another very well-worded answer. Mr. Park, you are a tough act to follow!

::Seriously, what is the deal with the creationist obsession with mutating genes? Seriously, the idea that changing the genes is a major driving force of evolution pre-dates the understanding of how genes work. There are plenty of other ('''much''' more common and interesting) ways to generate phenotypic variation within a population. In the past three decades, advances in population genetics, combined with a veritable revolution in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology, have demonstrated that. In other words, referencing the breakthroughs that have resulted from the new-found understanding of the molecular mechanisms of evolution, '''"This ain't your daddy's Darwin!"'''

::But first, because the question insists, I will address the boring stuff.

::Genes duplicate, entire sections of chromosomes, and sometimes even whole chromosomes, or sets of chromosomes, can be duplicated or even fused. Sometimes, just a portion of a gene is duplicated, or maybe even swapped with a part from a different gene. On a smaller scale, errors in DNA replication, among other factors, can cause single base pairs in DNA to be changed (this is called a "single nucleotide polymorphism" or a SNP--pronounced "Snip"), deleted, or inserted. Sometimes, it's a transposable element (chunks of DNA that like to move around in the genome--a lot) that inserts in the middle of an exon. Or maybe even an endogenous retrovirus that's still intact enough to move around finding itself in between two enhancer elements for an essential gene. Chromosomes are not static structures either. High school biology was only partially right when they taught you that recombination occurs between homologous chromosomes during meiosis; as it turns out, non-homologous chromosomes trade parts too sometimes (quite often, actually, on an evolutionary time scale). In short, on the scale of hundreds of millions of years, the genome has more in common with Mardis Gras in New Orleans than it does with a leather-bound book.

::On the genomic level, when and where mutations occur is largely random. The vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever on phenotype. However, when a mutation does affect phenotype, whether or not it survives to be present in future populations is not random. Any genomic change that increases an organism's ability to reproduce efficiently, will gradually become increasingly prevalent in subsequent generations because the more-efficiently reproducing individuals generate more offspring. Alternatively, if a variation impairs the ability of an individual to reproduce efficiently, then that variation will become less prevalent in subsequent generations because the individuals carrying it will produce proportionately fewer offspring. This seemingly obvious observation '''is''' natural selection. To say that a trait is "selected against" simply means that it has a deleterious effect on the relative reproductive potential of the individuals carrying it.

::Random mutations generate novel allelic variations within a population, and the sieve of reproduction keeps the randomly-occurring harmful variations from being present in future populations while at the same time amplifying the number of individuals carrying favorable variations. The net result of this process is anything but random.

::That said, ecosystems change, natural disasters happen, geological events happen, new organisms colonize an ecosystem and disrupt the food chain. An allele that was beneficial in one generation, may be quite deleterious four generations later. But, when that happens, selective pressure shifts and individuals carrying the now-harmful allele are out-reproduced by individuals who are better adapted to the new conditions--thus the allelic composition of the population shifts again. Repeating a similar cycle over hundreds of generations will result in a population that is, by and large, phenotypically different (sometimes quite dramatically) from the original population. Repeat the cycle over tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of generations, and add in a whole host of other possible random events that favor or cause a redistribution of allele frequencies over the generations, and the end population will have changed drastically from the original population.

::Now for the fun stuff. The regions of important genes that encode for important proteins are under quite a bit of selective pressure to change as little as possible over the generations; a random mutation in one those regions would be so harmful to the reproductive ability of the individuals carrying it that it is not likely to persist in a population for more than a few generations (assuming it's not lethal to the original carrier, in which case it would not even be present in one). As such, mutations in functional protein coding genes are not a major driving force of phenotypic change across generations. This is why the fruit fly makes a good model for human genetics--the superfluous regions of the genes (that, say, encode for parts of proteins where the amino acid sequence is largely inconsequential) have diverged quite a bit, but the important parts have stayed the same over the hundreds of millions of years since the last common ancestor between the fruit fly and the human. They have retained this "homology" because any changes in those regions was very strongly selected against.

::So what is the major cause of morphological change? Among closely related species (and, yes, for the purpose of this explanation humans are '''very''' closely related to mice), the major genetic differences underlying morphological variation are not in the protein-coding regions of the genes themselves, but in the promoter (regulatory) regions of these genes. Mutating an essential component gene that is essential to normal embryonic development is going to result in a dead embryo--not a reproductively viable organism. However, subtly adjusting the "on/off" switch of such a gene, and tweaking its expression pattern (which cells express a given gene), will both allow the organism to grow to reproductive viability, and produce a morphological change. If individuals with this new morphological change are able reproduce more efficiently than individuals without it, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations.

::As for how new genetic information is added (by which, I assume, you mean the emergence of new protein-coding genes), we return to the hustle and bustle of the chromosomes. Gene duplication events are very common. When an organism only has one or two (depending on the nature of the gene and the mutation) copies of an important gene to play with, significant changes will be very strongly selected against. When a gene is randomly duplicated, the organism now has a spare copy--and may accrue mutations in one of the copies of that gene without seriously impacting its reproductive potential. As mutations accumulate in the copy of the gene that is now freed from negative selective pressure, it will most likely just wind up as a useless (junk) sequence in the genomic junkyard (there are thousands of such non-functional duplicate-gene remnants in the human genome). If, however, as its sequence diverges from that of its "functional" copy, its mechanical function (or expression pattern, or both) changes in such a way that it provides a survival benefit to the organism carrying it, individuals carrying the divergent copy (now a new gene in its own right) will be selected for in subsequent generations and progressively more beneficial allelic variations of the new gene will be selected for.

::Similarly, when a large segment of a chromosome is duplicated, every new duplicate gene contained in that segment is entered into the "new gene lottery", for a chance to become new (repurposed) genetic information. This too is a fairly common occurrence, especially when there is a lot of selective pressure for novel adaptation.

::Evolution has been a '''long''' road. It's taken 4 billion years for gene duplication, sequence divergence, random catastrophes, population events, and the cut-throat race for reproductive viability to lead to life as we know it today.

::::[[Hardy Weinberg equilibrium]] is a model for what the genes of a living thing would be if they did not evolve. In this model, forces that change genetic frequency, such as mutations, genetic recombination, and so on, would have no effect. This concretely means that if a population has Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, and if, say, fifty percent of the individuals having one allele (alleles are versions of a gene) and fifty percent has another, then over, say, a thousand generations, fifty percent would still have one allele and fifty percent the other.

::::Experiments testing whether this equilibrium exists have been conducted for decades, and the result is that the frequency of alleles in a population change from generation to generation, and they change tremendously over large spans of time because mutations, genetic recombination, genetic drift, and other factors all make tiny changes in genes in individuals.

::::That withstanding, when individuals in a species pass their genes from generation to generation, it's easily to fathom that tiny observeable changes in alleles mean observeable changes in species over massive spans of time. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:15, 9 February 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution. Nobody who properly understands how evolution works would teach it as such; there would be no purpose in doing so other than to deliberately prevent the students from understanding the intricacies of the evolutionary process. Natural selection '''is''' the major driving force of evolution, but it not the same thing as evolution. No competent teacher would present them as the same thing. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::If you piece apart the chemical pathways, it is a given that losing a small part of that pathway will render it useless. However, incomplete parts of that pathway can serve different purposes inside the body, meaning that they still have a reason to be selected for.

::This argument is not unlike the flagellum argument, with the mousetrap analogy; a mousetrap will not work if it's missing a part. However, you can use the pieces of a mousetrap for other purposes than catching mice. Furthermore, a few of flagellum's parts serve other purposes in the body.

::The argument that a chemical pathway's complexity makes it impossible to produce by evolution relies on the assumption that every part of a chemical pathway is entirely useless unless every part is present. However, the body does not exist in a vacuum and countless import chemicals in the body serve multiple purposes. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:26, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Who cares? The potential existence of a designer doesn't have anything to do with the potential existence of evolution. The evolutionary mechanisms in question tend to rely on numbers, on the probability that a mutation will happen here, that random mating will pair this chromosome with that, that genetic drift will change one allele percentage to another. If these numbers are driven by an almighty force, it doesn't change the mechanisms themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this question is thus irrelevant to the debate. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:38, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::"Who did it produce with?" - Your question presupposes that there had to be two distinct sexes. My following point will be an educated guess. It may not be right, but it's just an example of how the different sexes could have occured.
:::::If you take a look at flowers, you'll find that each flower has both male and female reproductive organs. This is pretty much universal over all plant species. Animals on the other hand, tend to have distinct males and females (at least, most vertebrates). This would imply that the separate reproductive organs were present before plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor. The common ancestor would likely have both pairs of organs, as plants do today. Plants, perhaps, never lost this trait. However, at some point after the divergance, animals became distinctly male and female (again, at least in vertebrates).
:::::As you know, organisms need energy, and the more body parts and organs you have, the more energy you require. Could it be that in animals, organisms in a species started to become specialised for which organs they used? In half of a population, the female rep. organs were slightly reduced, and vice versa. This would mean that the organisms required less energy. They would all still have both pairs of organs, but one would be reduced. Soon, two sexes would form, as one type of sexual organ would have been reduced/lost in each group.
:::::Again, this is not fact, merely my suggestion. Add to it if you wish, or point out how this would be wrong/unlikely. Hope this helps.
:::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Evolution]]